Interesting food for thought in this article published in the Weave Journal of Library UX:
The goal of user experience work, as I see it, is not a purity of methods but a balancing of these methods with a practical effectiveness of outcomes. If ethnography and service design can be understood as poles on a spectrum, with methods on one side and outcomes on the other, then user experience would be my term for the spectrum itself. – Andy Priestner
I’m not sure I get much out of the idea of user experience as a spectrum between ethnography and service design, but I wholeheartedly agree that the goal of UX work is a balancing of methods more than a purity of methods. This view came up frequently in talks at both this year and last year’s IA Summit. FJ van Wingerde did an especially nice job of synthesizing how all the UX research tools we have are basically problematic, but we still have to use them:
And this article in the most recent issue of College & Research Libraries News is succinct but packed with crucial advice for managing library website redesign projects and really, actually focusing on users needs:
I know I’ve searched for articles on these topics before, but I think the stuff I found must’ve gotten lost in my email. There have to be lots of articles on UX and library websites, right? If not…I will write one. One day. And if I find some nuggets of gold in my email I’ll update this post with citations. Maybe I should do some research on personal information management too.
One of my favorite past-times is looking up university websites on the Internet Archive and laughing at what they looked like in the beginning. Ironically, it was probably easier to find the information you needed back when things looked like this:
The Web Marketing Association has an award for Best University Website. The Art Institute of Pittsburgh’s site won in 2007, but that version of the site seems to have disappeared. I remember using it once to try to find information about their library. I was impressed by how unconventional the site was, but I couldn’t find basic information I needed. Now the design is different – more structured but still attractive. This is unfortunate, though:
I see university websites as portals that must also contain a lot of content themselves, in addition to making a visual statement that conveys whatever the university is trying to emphasize about itself and enhances its brand. Ideally it should be impressive from a technological standpoint, since that in itself is (in my opinion) a statement about the quality of the institution. So basically university websites are probably one of the most challenging type of sites to design. This article from the blog of a design consultancy in Singapore sums it up quite nicely, covering issues of web standards, information architecture, and branding. An excerpt:
University websites tend to be more complicated than corporate websites. Here are some reasons why:
* Difficultly in defining a common vision: unlike corporate websites, it is difficult for a university to get all of its schools, divisions, centers, etc., to agree on a common vision for communicating on the web. This is a classic example of a house-of-brands or a branded-house conflict. Only the administrative offices are under the fold for obvious reasons. Thus, it is not uncommon to come across a school or a division crafting their own vision, often citing the hyper competitive education marketplace as their main reason (e.g. business schools).
* ‘Not invented here’ syndrome: because of the above, web design tends to fall into the hands of many different local webmasters who make decisions based on local directives – usually motivated by one-upmanship. This results in the hotchpotch that users finally get to see, and unfortunately, to experience.
* Lack of knowledge in user-centered design: this is crucial one. Because the needs of the user (or as Don Norman would say, people) does not take center stage, as the above two points show, design decisions are based on varying principles and random rationales leading to haphazard design outcomes. Unless there’s common understanding of user needs this is going to be a problem area for some time to come.
The xkcd comic above apparently started enough of an uproar to merit an article on Inside Higher Ed about the problems with university websites. And university websites don’t have half the problems library websites do thanks to all our different services which may require different interfaces, databases that require authentication which may have to occur on a page that isn’t the library’s, and the entirely separate (though maybe it shouldn’t be) beast that is the OPAC. But those are topics for another day.
Thanks to a friend’s recommendation, my life has been taken over by the South Korean TV show Coffee Prince (커피프린스 1호점). You know how sometimes when a movie is being advertised they have excerpts from supposed rave reviews, and often (especially for kids movies) it’ll say something like “This movie will make you want to stand up and cheer!” Honestly, has a movie ever made you want to do that? I can only think of one, and it was Stomp the Yard. Well this show makes me want to stand up and cheer. It is cute and dramatic and heartwarming. You can watch it all on Hulu! But here’s part of the first episode, just because I’m in favor of multimedia blog posts.
Another TV show I wanted to mention is this British show The Supersizers. Premise: A food critic and a comedian eat their way through British history while dressing the part and sharing bizarre trivia about each era. I think my favorite was the French Revolution episode. It can be kind of hard to find full episodes, but you can do it. The show originally aired on BBC4.
The only other thing I got is a quote that seems like a no-brainer, but it makes me ponder things a little:
A key feature of information is that it remains invisible until someone provides an interface to it.