In user experience we trust
W serwsie uxbite, jednym z nielicznych, regularnie aktualizowanych polskich blogów poświęconych użyteczności, tworzonym swoją drogą przez trzy kobiety opublikowany został krótki artykuł “10 przykazań moderatorów testów” wraz z poręczną ściągawką.
W artykule nie znajdziemy żadnych nowych prawd objawionych, ale jednostronnicowa ściągawka, wisząca w miejscu wykonywania badań, może być wygodnym przypomnieniem podstawowych błędów, często mających miejsce w trakcie testów z moderatorem.
Użytkownicy grupy “Dostępność i Użyteczność” na portalu społecznościowo-pracowym GoldenLine, wzięli udział w niereprezentatywnej, subiektywnej ankiecie odnośnie zarobków w branży usability/user-experience.
Wg wyników ankiety średnia pensja specjalisty ds. użyteczności w Polsce wynosi 4200 złotych netto. Zarobki w Warszawie są wyższe i sięgają średnio 5500 złotych.
Z badania, można wysnuć, że najpopularniejszą nazwą pozycji jest specjalista ds. użyteczności (10 na 25 osób tak określiło nazwę swojego stanowiska w ten sposób) i architekt informacji (5/25 osób).
Dla porównania, według wyników “UPA 2009 Salary Survey” przeprowadzanej rokrocznie przez Usability Professionals’ Associations, najpopularniejszymi tytułami wśród członków grupy są User Experience Practitioner (264/1786 osób) i Usability Professional (211/1786 osób).
Dodatkowe informacje i dokument źródłowy: Ile zarabia specjalista uzytecznosci w Polsce? (lokalna kopia) autorstwa Dominiki Turzyńskiej.
UPDATE: Razem z Joanną Kwiatkowską przeprowadziliśmy badania specjalistów od użyteczności i user experience w Polsce. Szczegóły dostępne są w raporcie dostępnym do pobrania ze strony: raport2012.hci.org.pl
W często cytowanym przeze mnie serwisie “52 Weeks of UX”, w artykule Reward the passionates bardzo ciekawy przykład, w jaki sposób można wykorzystać zaangażowanie i satysfakcję istniejących użytkowników, w celu osiągniecia realnych korzyści.
Jest to szczególnie godne uwagi w Polsce, gdzie w większości strategie pozyskiwania użytkowników w przedsięwzięciach e-commerce (zwłaszcza na fali POIG 8.1) sprowadzają się do zakupu ruchu przez Google AdWords.
(…) Dropbox did what lots of other startups do…they paid for traffic. They used Google adwords to drive traffic to their site…purchasing advertisement placement on the keywords associated with their product.
Dropbox quickly discovered, however, that the cost of this strategy was very expensive. They needed to run $300 worth of ads to get one single person through to become a paying customer. And given that Dropbox could expect the lifetime value of each customer to be around $100, they were actually losing $200 each time that happened.
So instead Dropbox tried a completely different approach: they offered a double-sided incentive in which existing users could refer the service to their friends and colleagues. The new users, when they signed up for the service, would get additional storage space for free. What makes this a double-sided incentive was that the person who referred the newcomer would also get additional space for free, permanently. In this way Dropbox was attempting to drive new business not by figuring out the right keywords that work, but by rewarding the most passionate people who already use their product. And, as a result, Dropbox doesn’t need to advertise anymore.
(…) So the lesson of Dropbox is this: your existing, passionate customers (the people who have gone through the usage lifecycle) are the most powerful asset you have. They know why your product is great and they can communicate that to their social network better than you can. They can sell it better because they’re experiencing it every day and they’re not biased in the way you are. In short: they tend to be much more influential than you.
You’re going to display your error message to a person, so write it in the tone of voice you would use if you were telling the error message to the person directly. What is appropriate to your brand and the users you expect to be working with?
Avoid jargon like invalid code, unrecognized field, mandatory—and device.
If you are not clear on what people might see as jargon, try out the text on a person who doesn’t design or develop technology.
Or, if that is impossible, you can get a sense of what words might be familiar to nontechnical people from a tool such as the Vocabulary Profiler, an online checker that tells you whether your text is among the most common 1000 words in English, the next most common 1000 words, from academic language, or is unfamiliar to most people.
Źródło: Avoid Being Embarrassed by Your Error Messages, Caroline Jarrett, UX Matters
Usability problems with Personal Security Questions:
- Questions are not specific enough.
- Answers to questions change over time.
- Users don’t have an answer to the question.
- Users provide answers that aren’t easily repeatable.
Security problems with Personal Security Questions:
- Answers to questions are easily guessed.
- Answers to questions are easily found online or in other public sources of data.
What to improve?
- Decide whether personal security questions are truly useful for your site.
- Always tell users the date they provided answers to their security questions.
- Consider implementing a CAPTCHA to prevent hackers from writing scripts to automatically guess answers.
- Consider letting users fill in the blanks to make stronger questions.
- If letting users write their own questions, give adequate guidance.
- Consider using an alternative challenge and response approach.
Źródło i wartościowy artykuł z sugestiami i przykładami: The Design of Personal Security Questions, Usability Matters
Who, What, Where, When, Why (and How – it ends with a “w” cut me some slack). In school we were taught that these fundamental questions must be addressed in the process of creating a strong argument and delivering a legitimate story. In the world of User Experience, being able to accurately answer these 5 questions can be the difference between a product that instantly resonates with the customer and one that quickly makes its’ way to the Startup Graveyard. (…)
- What problem are we trying to solve?
- Who is the customer?
- Where can we improve on existing patterns and solutions?
- When should we begin to get user feedback?
- Why does our product solve the problem?
- How can data help you understand what you are building?
Źródło: The five w’s of UX , seria 52 weeks of UX
More than a third of companies (37%) use site search technology which is free, and this number increases to 56% for companies with a turnover of less than £10 million. A third of companies (33%) say the cost of site search is included within other software fees.
Many seem to think site search technology is worth the investment, as those using specialist site search vendors are most likely to be satisfied. A quarter of these companies say they are very satisfied (25%) and a further 36% say they are “quite satisfied”.
Users have a low tolerance of poor site search performance, and if they cannot find what they are looking for, they are likely to abandon the site and look elsewhere.
On average just 50% of site searches were successful, and 40% of responding companies were not even aware of the success rates. There is room for improvement here, as well as in the method of measurement.
Źródło: Half of site searches are unsuccessful: report, E-consultany
Słyszałem już o różnych pomysłach na prototypowanie nowych aplikacji. Począwszy od klasycznych HTML-owych, “klikalnych” prototypów stworzonych w Axure, poprzez prototypowanie w “czystym HTML’u” czy tworzenie intraktywnych prototypów w Excelu (głęboki szacunek), skończywszy na prototypach w PowerPoincie/Keynote.
Entuzjastą tego ostatniego pomysłu jest Travis Isaacs, który na konferencji Big Design 2010, przedstawił prezentację Keynote Kung-Fu: How Ninjas Wireframe. [Read more…]
Polecam artykuł o podstawach metody badawczej, zwanej pod nazwą wędrówki poznawczej (cognitive walkthrough) – „The 4 questions to ask in a cognitive walkthrough” w serwisie Userfocus. Warto.
Recent Comments