UX? No thanks it just costs more money

59

Transcript of UX? No thanks it just costs more money

Page 1: UX? No thanks it just costs more money
Page 2: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

U S E R C E N T R E D D E S I G N ?N O T H A N K S ,

I T J U S T C O S T SM O R E M O N E Y

Steve Attewell

Page 3: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

1 9 9 6

Page 4: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

Do they really need all this?

Page 5: UX? No thanks it just costs more money
Page 6: UX? No thanks it just costs more money
Page 7: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

Projects being defined by making assumptions as to what customers want

rather than asking customers what they need

Page 8: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

What we need is some UX

Page 9: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

“This person is asking me to extend the timeline of the project by adding a load of research.”

“I am being asked to spend more money up front.”

“Why should I spend more time and money in up-front user research when I already know what I want to build?”

Page 10: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

“This person is asking me to extend the timeline of the project by adding a load of research.

I am being asked to spend more money up front.

Why should I spend more time and money in up-front user research when I already know what I want to build?”

Page 11: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

Number of features

Qua

lity

of f

eatu

res

Effo

rt to

kic

k o

ff

Cus

tom

er a

pp

eal

K I C K O F F B U I L D S A L E S

Page 12: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

Number of features

Qua

lity

of f

eatu

res

Effo

rt to

kic

k o

ff

K I C K O F F B U I L D S A L E S

Cus

tom

er a

pp

eal

Page 13: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

Number of features

Qua

lity

of f

eatu

res

Effo

rt to

kic

k o

ff

K I C K O F F B U I L D S A L E S

Cus

tom

er a

pp

eal

Page 14: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

Number of features

Qua

lity

of f

eatu

res

Effo

rt to

kic

k o

ff

K I C K O F F B U I L D S A L E S

Cus

tom

er a

pp

eal

Page 15: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

B U I L D L E S S G E T M O R E

Page 16: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

Superfluous features are developed because some of the initial assumptions were wrong.

Specifications change because the reasoning behind the requested features is not crystal-clear.

P RO J E C T WA S T E

Page 17: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

2 0 “ O K ” F E AT U R E S D E V E L O P E D $

Specification changes Development of unimportant features

Project timeline

SP

EC

Page 18: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

2 0 “ O K ” F E AT U R E S D E V E L O P E D

1 0 “ AW E S O M E ” F E AT U R E S D E V E L O P E D.

$

$

Specification changes Development of unimportant features

User interviews User stories

Concept testing Specification

Project timeline

SP

EC

Page 19: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

W H AT ’ S U C D E V E R D O N E F O R U S ?

A reduced set of features

Page 20: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

A reduced set of features

A set of features that customers want

W H AT ’ S U C D E V E R D O N E F O R U S ?

Page 21: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

A reduced set of features

A set of features that customers want

Development time and money is not wasted

W H AT ’ S U C D E V E R D O N E F O R U S ?

Page 22: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

A reduced set of features

A set of features that customers want

Development time and money is not wasted

Less susceptible to scope-creep (or outright scope-change)

W H AT ’ S U C D E V E R D O N E F O R U S ?

Page 23: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

A reduced set of features

A set of features that customers want

Development time and money is not wasted

Less susceptible to scope-creep (or outright scope-change)

More engaged users

W H AT ’ S U C D E V E R D O N E F O R U S ?

Page 24: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

10 well-crafted features are better than 20 crappy ones

Page 25: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

U X

R E S I L I E N C E D I R E C T P I L OT A P P

D E V E L O P M E N T

Tasking and Logging

Steve Attewell

Page 26: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

TA S K I N G A N D L O G G I N G F O R E M E R G E N C I E S

Page 27: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

“We need a document management system”

Page 28: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

“Really?”

Page 29: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

U S E R WO R K S H O PO R “ W H AT ’ S T H E P RO B L E M ? ”

Our team asked the resilience planning officers to come in and asked them about their problems and needs during disaster scenarios.

• Lots of tasks to manage and assign - information overload

• Communication between parties

• Managed on paper and spreadsheets

• Used once in a blue moon

• Which info is relevant to me?

• Audit trails

• Lost info

Page 30: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

U N D E R S TA N D I N G T H E P RO B L E M

The team built user flows and analysed requirements during the workshop

Page 31: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

Creating, assigning and tracking tasksacross multiple agencies in different locations in a high pressure scenario

T H E F U N DA M E N TA L N E E D

Page 32: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

W H O E L S E H A S S I M I L A R P RO B L E M S ?We then looked at other interfaces that solve similar problems

Page 33: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

C A R D I N T E R FAC ED E S I G N PAT T E R N

Page 34: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

B A S I C C A R D I N T E R FAC E

ListOverview of all cards

ExpandedCard summary

Back of cardExtended information

Page 35: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

S K E T C H I N G A N D W I R E F R A M I N G

We proposed an interface for review with the UX team

Page 36: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

M U LT I P L E F I LT E R E D L I S T S

Page 37: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

C U S TO M L I S T S

Page 38: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

M A P V I E W

Page 39: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

AC C O M PA N Y I N G M O B I L E ( W E B ? ) A P P

Page 40: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

A R E W E O N T H E R I G H T T R AC K ?

Showed the wireframes to Cabinet Office staff, and Resilience Planning Officers from Hampshire County Council.

Feedback. Confirmation to continue

S T R I P P E D D OW N TO M V PWhat’s the minimum we could build to satisfy a live resilience training exercise in 2 months time?

Page 41: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

I N - B ROW S E R P ROTOT Y P ETest, Iterate (and simplify) - in conjunction with OS Labs team

1st version built in 2 weeks

Page 42: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

M A P V I E W

Page 43: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

E X PA N D E D C A R D

Page 44: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

B AC K O F C A R D

Page 45: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

M O R E B AC K S O F C A R D S

Page 46: UX? No thanks it just costs more money
Page 47: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

A R E W E O N T H E R I G H T T R AC K ?( U S E R F E E D B AC K A N D T E S T I N G )

4 hour training and testing session with 30 police, fire, ambulance, and county council employees at Hampshire Constabulary Training HQ, Netley.

Including a feedback session.

Demoing to resilience planning officers at The Emergency Services show @ Birmingham NEC.

Page 48: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

T H E P ROTOT Y P E AC I D T E S T 1

30 Resilience Planners tested the multi-agency strategic response to a major incident at the ExxonMobil Chemical site at Fawley

LIVEX - 12 Nov 2015

Page 49: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

C A P T U R E F E E D B AC K

User feedback gives us a focused roadmap of features and user need

Page 50: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

T H E P ROTOT Y P E AC I D T E S T 2

100 Resilience Planners tested the system during a terrorist planning exercise and training day

Terrorist incident training day - 6 Jan 2016

Page 51: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

O U T C O M E S

Clear focus on features based on direct feedback from end users

The pilot app is used basis for the spec of the final product - leading to a timely specification stage

Unambiguous focus for the product that all stakeholders agree on

Cabinet office, UX team, product owner, and dev team understand the problem and context in much more detail

Page 52: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

W H AT ’ S M I S S I N G F RO M P I L OT P RO J E C T S ?

NFRs

Hosting

Security

Architecture

Admin requirements

Security

Page 53: UX? No thanks it just costs more money
Page 54: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

What does failure look like?

Page 55: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

$

Project timeline

W H AT D O E S FA I L U R E L O O K L I K E ?

$

Commitment to a platform (Sharepoint DMS?)

Wireframing, maybe pilot

the “We got it wrong” moment

SP

EC

Page 56: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

$

Project timeline

W H AT D O E S FA I L U R E L O O K L I K E ?

$

Commitment to a platform (Sharepoint DMS?)

Wireframing, maybe pilot

Page 57: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

$

Project timeline

W H AT D O E S FA I L U R E L O O K L I K E ?

$

Commitment to a platform (Sharepoint DMS?)

Wireframing, maybe pilot

Page 58: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

fail fast

Page 59: UX? No thanks it just costs more money

@SteveAttewell

Questions?