5 ways to stop second guessing user intent. Choose clarity.

I was using Lync to start an online meeting. The place where I work uses Lync as an online chat, phone and screen sharing tool – it is like a variation of Skype. What I like about it is that I don’t need to use a phone and can access a meeting quickly. What I don’t like about it are the perpetual confirmation screens asking me details about what I want to do.

The button options are clear – phone, chat, video, screenshare, invite other people. Not a lot of question there.

Although the buttons are clear, Lync still asks a lot of questions:

  • Do I want to use Lync for my phone, an outside line, or have Lync call me?
  • Do I want to share my entire desktop or an app only?
  • Do I want to chat on the screen with the phone call?

All of these questions all the time is more than annoying.

How would you feel if you saw this screen every single time you made a Lync call:

Sure, there is a checkbox so I can remove the window, but why not after the first experience, encourage the user to save what was selected as a preference?

Or better yet, why is there a need to show this window at all if the user has a headset plugged-in to his computer?

I have been slightly late to calls because I forgot to make an extra click to remind the app that I use a headset through my computer. Or I didn’t share my screen properly because Lync wanted to know if I wanted to share an app or my desktop.

In UX design, you have to make some educated guesses as to what the user most likely wants to do. Some guesses are based on data; some guesses are based on common sense; some guesses are based on research.

5 ways to determine what the user really wants to do:

  • If there are peripherals plugged into a computer that the app can leverage, most likely the user wants to use them. Apple does a great job with this. If a headset or headphones are plugged into a computer, the system automatically uses them. It doesn’t ask “Do you want to use your speakers? Do you want to use your headset?” That’s just silly. And if the user wants to use system speakers and the headset is still plugged in – the user will catch on when he doesn’t hear anything. Skype handles this well too. If I’m trying to call someone through Skype, most likely I’m not going to want to use my phone. And if I do want to use my phone, I’ll probably use Skype through my phone. My phone number is there, but why would I use it? If I didn’t have a a headset plugged in, sure, I may to use a phone. Ask me that then.
  • Collect data in the app and default to the most popular case. Apps can collect information about users and what they tend to use. If you create an app, try to do this. Web apps often do this. It’s free usability data!
  • Usability Testing. I know, I’m being captain obvious here. But you can learn a lot from usability testing. Ask your users what they prefer in a session reviewing your app. I’m sure asking them question after question and showing the same screen all the time isn’t appealing to them. Let them give input into how it should work.
  • Default to the most inclusive case and allow exceptions. For example, default to sharing the desktop and include a way for the user to narrow his scope. At least the sharing process is started and goes to the most complete solution. It is always easier to narrow; easier than having to select an option.
  • Build a memory into the system to remember what the user typically does. If a user has a headset plugged in and frequently uses the headset, have that be the default case and give the user an easy way to do something else. Don’t ask the user every time what he wants to do. Or if the user always shares the desktop, offer that as the default. If the user often shares PowerPoint, default to sharing that. And if that app isn’t on, present a message on the screen reminding the user that app isn’t open and share the desktop instead.

Users don’t need to keep deciding. I think  there are 2 reasons why we revert to this paradigm:

  • We believe that asking more questions will direct the user to what he wants. We do this with phone systems. The challenge is that people will often select “0” in a phone system because the questions get tedious. .
  • Microsoft introduced the option: “Don’t show this window again,” after confirming an action the user selected yet again. That’s not a usability strategy. That’s a way to get around building a system that remembers how a user works to create a personalized experience for him. Ideally, a user should select an action and the computer should execute it. Why do you need to confirm that you want to exit a program? The system should automatically save documents and close them. Sure, it takes extra work to program this in, but it’s far more user friendly and what a user expects to happen.

Stop second guessing your users. If your button/link is clear – they will do what is needed as they expect. Don’t make it harder on them.

5 ways to stop second guessing user intent. Choose clarity.

eBook – 5 reasons to use custom gestures in your mobile app today!

I'm working with Roamtouch on their gestureKit product. I truly believe they are onto something to manage multi-device supported gestures through the cloud. The challenge now is how to use this new idea in mobile products. 

(Isn't that always the way? How do you bring cool mobile technology to day-to-day use?)

Here is the eBook – 5 reasons you need custom getures today.

I'd like to hear your feedback! (I wrote it – so any feedback, ideas, suggestions, etc. would be awesome!).

Roamtouch/gestureKit also has an Indiegogo campaign going on. Check it out! They have some fantastic offers. 

 

eBook – 5 reasons to use custom gestures in your mobile app today!

Remove the pressure: 5 way to get prospects to talk to you

Or Part 2 of why people dodge sales calls.

No one is going to contact you about purchasing anything unless that person has a project in mind. The standard lead qualifiers – budget and timeline – need to be met. Without these key elements, you can call this person all you want, but there will be no sale. It will just be a waste of your time.

With that said, you must be wondering if marketing activities are a waste. They aren't. Those activities should be reaching new people, building awareness of your company's product and offerings. You are trying to find people who need what you sell. And often, you'll come across someone who is new who needs to buy something now. But more on this later.

Let's get back to how people need to have a project in mind when they call you to buy.

It really is as simple as that. Again, you can call phone numbers you get from a lead generation form, but if those individuals don't have a project, a budget and a timeline, the call is a waste of time.  

Prospects need to be enticed to have a conversation, similar to a girl at a bar by a potential suitor. There has to be a reason for conversation, and product features (or looks) will only go so far. From my experience, the best conversations in these situations have a strong non-committal aspect to them, or rather, an escape factor.

There always has to be a way for someone to leave right away if something goes bad – too much pressure, someone says something ridiculous, or someone does something unacceptable. There has to be a way to leave quickly, cleanly, and politely. No one likes to reject people on a first meeting. It feels weird and judgemental – and people generally don't like to think they are that way.

The same is true for prospects. If you want to talk to prospects, you need to remove the pressure.

There are 3 qualities that have to exist in the conversation and the medium where that conversation takes place for a successful prospect conversation:

  • Escape path
  • No expectations during the conversation
  • Keeping it casual and conversational in tone

Like dating, these initial conversations are about getting to know someone and keeping it non-committal. The goal is to get to the date – not the phone number – so the more casual the better.

What are the 5 best ways to achieve this?

  • Online chat. I love online chat and find it highly effective to generate solid leads. Even the word "chat" has a casual aspect to it. And if the conversation gets weird, you can always close the chat window. There have been many times that I have used chat to ask a few technical questions, only for the conversation to get too involved for chat, so I initiate a phone conversation. I'm sure others are similar. The conversation is about the prospect's needs – not a sales pitch. 
  • Social media. I love Twitter and use it often for support and for questions during the very early stages of the sales process. It's very casual – notes are no more than 140 characters. It's quick, easy, and not very involved. And if you need more help – take it to email or phone. Same with Facebook. The beauty of social media is that it is very public – everyone can see your communication. This makes this all the more casual and keeps it "normal" – everyone can see a weird/pushy conversation, so they are typically avoided, and you can easily leave a conversation (ignore it or just get out and delete your thread). It meets all the criteria.
  • Lead nurturing. Someone comes to your site to get a white paper. After a few weeks, you send him something else that may interest him. He reads it and wants more. And this continues for a while. He is an information junkie, but he may choose your product when ready to buy because you have given him so much free knowledge. Or he may refer your company and product to someone who is ready to buy. Nurturing a lead won't convince him to buy – he will only call when he wants to buy – but it will keep you at the top of his mind for that moment. 
  • Sales call to talk about some related subject – NOT ABOUT BUYING PRODUCT. If you have experience with this working, let me know. I want to try this with a program, because I think it would work, at least it has with me in the past. Has a sales person ever called you – not to sell something, not to invite you to sales event, just to check-in and ask you what you thought about the products you purchased or a new announcement or something new happening? It's powerful. And it is multi-purposed: it's casual customer research (you are getting his opinion), it's a great way to keep in touch with customers (a reason to talk to them), and a great way to check in if someone will EVER buy. Yes – EVER buy. Just because someone downloads a bunch of white papers, there may be no project or budget in place. But you can confirm if it is nothing, or maybe something someday, or just customer insight. You can't lose!
  • Trade shows. Yes, they may seem to be dying, but trade shows are fantastic places to meet prospects and get to know them. It's like a massive singles party – some are looking for a commitment, some just want a good time, some just like to watch people. It's the same for sales – some have a project, budget and timeline, some are just curious, and some just want to look around. It's all about conversations – and there may not be a sale there, but there is great awareness about what you sell for future reference and referrals. And yes – there is always an easy escape (always need to get a drink or food or run away), no expectations (the likelihood of selling anything on a show floor is slim), and casual – it's just knowledge sharing. 

If you want customers to contact you, you really need to meet 3 criteria – allow an escape, no expectations, and keep it casual. It's like dating – show you are a good conversationalist and could be a good friend, and that person will warm up to give you that date. Or for sales, give you a meeting for a sale if there is indeed an opportunity.

More on how to present your company to people to grab those opportunities in the next post. 

Remove the pressure: 5 way to get prospects to talk to you

“I gave them your number because I didn’t want sales to call me”

I was researching CMS options for a client. I asked my assistant to get a few white papers and brochures from a list of vendors I created, read through the materials to learn what each one offered, and then I’d work with him to create a feature matrix to compare the options and narrow down the list to 3-4 vendors. It was a fairly straightforward project.

Late one afternoon, I got a call from one of the vendors, asking for my assistant and wanting to discuss the white paper he downloaded. I said he was tied up and that this wasn’t his number – it was mine! Then I called him to find out what happened.

All he had to say: “I didn’t want sales to call me.”

He didn’t want to talk to sales (it was funny that he didn’t consider that I didn’t want these calls either). I didn’t want to talk to sales, either. We weren’t ready. But somehow, the companies he got content from weren’t convinced that we weren’t ready. They were tyring to make us ready, using the old model of sales guiding us through the sales process. But I didn’t want their help–I wanted to guide myself.

We have all heard the analogy before, but it is true – sales is like dating. A guy in a bar has the goal of getting a girl’s number and have her say yes to a date. It’s not just about getting the number, getting a number is easy. Anyone can collect a bunch of numbers without a lot of conversation. That doesn’t guarantee a date at all. It does guarantee a lot of potentially fake numbers.

Now a guy can have a conversation with a girl, build some rapport, find out what they have in common, buy the girl a drink and most likely – the guy will get a date. He has to show that he cares about who she is and what she’s all about just a little bit for her to definitely say yes.

I guess its about your goal. Is it the number or the date?

Back to sales…gating an asset and asking for a phone number doesn’t make a sale – it means you got a number. We wonder why these forms don’t perform sometimes; but if we go back to the dating analogy, offering a white paper after a form is like that “smooth talker” at a bar, who uses a bunch of pick-up lines and doesn’t seem to care who the girls are. And then he wonders why he constantly gets fake numbers! (As does the company that offers the white paper after a form, using them as a lead.)

Early in the process, most prospects aren’t looking to talk to sales. Sure, they may want a conversation, but most likely not. Today people want to research in silence and they will call when ready to buy.

I know it is hard for companies to hold back a little and let a customer get to know them. Letting a customer get to know your company doesn’t bring a phone number or a sale. It will – but not now. This is such a different paradigm for any lead generation team.

In the past without the Internet, prospects would realize that they had a need, and they would call a list of companies to have some conversations. Sales spent time helping people thru the pre-sales process, providing knowledge and information as needed. They typically helped the prospect figure out what he really wanted.

Today, people can do the research part online (most times coming to a company 60-90% through the sales process, at least according to Gartner). The challenge is that customers sometimes go too far in the research process to think, “I want THAT!” when in fact, they NEED something very different. But they avoid sales because, well, sales can be pushy.

And a pushy sales guy is like the grabby guy who tries to fondle the girl on date #1, when she clearly wants to go home. Icky!

Now that customers are doing this research and calling “when they are ready,” marketing and sales don’t feel that sales have as many contacts to call.

  • First, sales always wants more people to call. Many times, they don’t call them, but they like having them around. It’s the thought that counts, I guess.
  • Second, they have more targeted prospects if they wait until later in the process to get the lead – a better chance of a real “date,” or sale. If they wait a little, sometimes sales has people who are ready to dig into the details and be guided in the decision making process. Sure, they may be 50% through it, but they are ready – and it should go quickly.

Companies need to get beyond thinking that collecting a bunch of phone numbers or email addresses is an activity unto itself. It can be, but most of the numbers are typically trash – either fake or people who aren’t ready to do anything. A company is better off finding ways to get to know these prospects – find out what they are looking for, see if there is a way they can help them, and give them that info for free by posting it on the Web site and in PDFs.

Basically, get to know that girl in the bar buy her a drink.

And if the girl feels like there is a bit of a match, she will say yes to the date. Just like a prospects will say yes to call if it seems that the company can help them.

My next post will go into ways to make this happen. Stay tuned for more!

“I gave them your number because I didn’t want sales to call me”

Gestures are language – Part 1

I have been working on an ebook for Roamtouch, gestureKitand their Indiegogo campaign (coming up soon – Stay tuned for September 3!). So gestures have been at the top of my mind lately, and I believe they will emerge as a new way to interact with devices. More to come later this week – this is definitely a Part 1!

 

Gestures are language. We use gestures to complement our speech, elaborating and exaggerating a story. Some people can't tell a story unless their hands are available to add emphasis to their points and visually illustrate their story in the air.

Sign language is a gesture language. Mimes tell their stories through gestures. Gestures dominate the game of charades.  

Sometimes we forget that you don't need to have a voice to communicate.

This is why I don't understand why we don't treat device gestures like a language, or at least, as much as we should. We treat device gestures as if our fingers are an extension of a mouse or a keyboard. We point and select. We type. But do we really interact with the device?

A mouse, an OS menu, even a UI were created for us by engineers to communicate with computing devices. Engineers created command languages so machines can "do" something; it was a language created for a non-living intelligence that is expanded daily to get a machine complete an action.

If we created a language to communicate with devices that we also created, why didn't we make the way to communicate with a device consistent with how we communicate with each other?

Why did we create computer language in a very inorganic way?

I have been fascinated with language for years. I almost studied linguistics (ok, so I was also almost a math major, and dozens of other majors. Ah, the joys of being young). In grad school, I loved the philosophies and teachings of Derrida and his views on language, specifically what he defined in his book, Of Grammatology.

Let's start with the definition of Phonocentrism, which is one of the basics for language definition: 

Phonocentrism is the belief that sounds and speech are inherently superior to, or more primary than, written language. Those who espouse phonocentric views maintain that spoken language is the primary and most fundamental method of communication whereas writing is merely a derived method of capturing speech.

Wikipedia

Derrida felt that phonocentrism downplayed written language and communication, and in a way he is right. Written language is just as much as a separate language, so to speak (no pun intended) as spoken language.

Of Grammatology (1967) is an examination of the relation between speech and writing and of the ways in which speech and writing develop as forms of language. According to Derrida, writing has often been considered to be derived from speech, and this attitude toward the relation of speech and writing has been reflected in many philosophic and scientific investigations of the origin of language. However, the tendency to consider writing as an expression of speech has led to the assumption that speech is closer than writing to the truth or logos of meaning and representation. Derrida argues that the development of language actually occurs through an interplay between speech and writing, and that because of this interplay, neither speech nor writing may properly be described as being more important to the development of language.

Alex Scott

Speech and writing are different expressions of the same language. Each contributes to the development of the other. This is why we could say that texting is changing written language and spoken language. We now use the expressions "O-M-G," as well as "cray cray," and other text-only terms in spoken language. Texting, or typing, which is writing, is changing spoken English.

The typed influences the written which influences the spoken language (and vice versa). Both, and now all, sides refine how we communicate with each other, the written refining and consolidating the words used; the spoken being more expressive and more directly expressing thoughts.

Derrida was right.

But how would Derrida's perspective work with gestures?

Probably the same way.

Gestures for devices should be created in a more organic way – not through definitions made in operating systems, defined by a select few. Gestures will evolve with the written and spoken word, to associate an action or task with a motion. Sure, we need some initial definitions, like we do with swipes and taps. But what about "buy now," or "cash a check?" Ideally, those gestures should be defined by a group, like a language is defined by a society.

We know what "I love you" is in sign language – a gesture language. Someday, we will know what "on," "off," "call," "buy now," etc. are in machine gestures. And given how much our language changes every day – I'm sure there will be more gestures evolving.

More to come.

 

Gestures are language – Part 1