How much functionality should a site offer for free to get someone to convert? Share your story.

I've had some interesting experiences lately with free products – mainly, how much am I able to do for free without being required to buy something. There are some products and sites where I am almost forced to buy something before I'm really ready and I barely get to see how the product works.

Have you had this experience as well? I'm curious what your thoughts are. I have 2 sites in mind that are offenders (I'm sure I'll get more soon). I'll be blogging about the experiences.

If you have a great story, feel free to post in the comments or if you want to be a guest blogger on my site, send me a message on Twitter so we can make that happen. 

Remember – this isn't a b****-fest. There should be lessons learned and you should provide suggestions for improvement.

Hope to see your stories soon!

How much functionality should a site offer for free to get someone to convert? Share your story.

HP is one step closer to improve security for Internet of Things

The Internet of Things is a problem because there is no security infrastructure for them. 

HP decided to change this, starting with their printers. They are leveraging technology from Red Balloon Security that takes the problem of security out of the hands of users and into the world of devices.

The biggest security risk in the IoT area is routers/networking. Get a virus or other hack in the network and watch problems spread. And if the industry continues to leave responsibility for security to the users, frankly, not much will happen (most users don't see the larger security threats).

It's great to see device manufacturers taking a stand to protect their devices and the network – and move security out of the hands of users. It's really not their job.

I can't wait to see what HP does next!

HP is one step closer to improve security for Internet of Things

What’s your cybersecurity personality? Fun quiz from Heimdal Security and a movie suggestion

Heimdal Security is one of my favorite companies because they offer the best free consumer eduation about cybersecurity, backup, and privacy. It's so needed in today's transactional world that includes commerce, community, and IoT. The more "things" that go online to the virtual world, the greater chance they have of being hacked. The hacks that we see now are getting larger and more bold –  the latest was at Anthem and impacted millions with very sensitive health insurance info). You can't be too safe out there!

This fun personality quiz asks questions based on online habits. Depending on how you answer indicates how open  you may be for an attack. It's 6 questions and pretty fun!

 

If you aren't into quizzes, I saw a great movie other night about the Internet, security, and how our lives are changed from it - Men, Women and Children. Security, privacy and online identity is impliedin a few of the storylines (it doesn't cover hacking, but some of the parents do know their children's passwords – and use their accounts! A definite grey area.), but it generally tells the tale of how 4-5 families react to kids growing up with social media, online games, online businesses and the impact of that. There's lots of relationship weirdness (Jennifer Gardner plays a crazy scary mom – and that's the key to the security/privacy storyline), lots of coping, lots of sex, lots of sadness, a lot of love, and a lot of joy. If anything, it shows how our world got a lot more complicated from the Internet, or rather, how we made it more complicated. The same rules of the offline world do apply to the online world, but unfortunately, we don't necessarilly see that because what's online isn't "real." 

Anonymity doesn't mean no person exists. It's something we need to remember.

The lesson of the movie: keep it safe as you would offline! The online world can complicate your life if you let it.

 

 

So if you have a few minutes and want to see how you rate regarding security – take the quiz!

If you want to see how the Internet has changed our lives and the importance of security and privacy even within families – watch the movie.

 

What’s your cybersecurity personality? Fun quiz from Heimdal Security and a movie suggestion

Who owns the UX of an app?

It's an important, yet sensitive, question.
 
Because I am an Experience Strategist and Designer, I feel that I should be saying that the UX team owns the UX. But these days, from my experience and observations of teams, that just isn’t true.
 
There are too many people who have a stake in the product – including the user experience team:
  • Product owners and product managers need the product to succeed, or rather, attract users and achieve revenue targets. Often usability factors make or break a product – is it visually appealing? Is it fun? Is it easy to use? Products need to be simple and familiar to a user's life experience for them to use it often. 
  • Developers want what's simpler to implement, especially for the UI. They would rather architect an interface to be easy to implement, maintain and enhance – something scalable. They also want what is optimal from a page load and system resource perspective.
  • Marketing wants to be sure that the interfaces use the right colors and wording, but it also wants to be sure that the app experience "feels" consistent from a brand perspective.
  • Users like what’s simple and easy to use. Ideally they should be driving product development (Product budget money technically comes from users and customers; it is granted to product owners/managers to use as they deem fit by the company).
  • The corporation funding the product and customer experience group want to be sure that the product accurately reflects the corporate missions, vision and brand (and for brand, like the marketers, this isn’t just colors and look and feel – it's the full customer experience with the app and the process to access it).
 
Those are the immediate stakeholders I can think of off the top of my head. 
 
 
With all of these stakeholders and decision makers involved in the design, we can probably claim that design takes a village and design heroism is dead.
 
Design today is about collaboration. And a designer's job is to facilitate the discussion.
 
From my perspective, Steve Jobs was less a designer than a product owner/product manager who valued good design. There is a difference. Product owners think about the business – revenues and new markets –  and are often influenced by design thinking because that is what customers want – elegant, familiar products that make sense. Product owners want their products to innovate their industries, which means that they want to influence change in people's behaviors. That's a noble cause, but this is about business, so there has to be a profit component. The product has to look good, and it has to work even better to sell. It's not design for design sake.
 
My favorite Steve Jobs story is the iPhone and its glass face. Originally it was plastic – and it got scratched being in pockets and didn't wear very well. Steve was using the prototype and realized that no one wants a phone with an easily scratched plastic face. It just wouldn't sell. It needed a glass face – eventually, gorilla glass from Corning. But Steve was driven not just by creating a new way of using the phone and the innovation, he was also driven by the design – by how people would use it and how it would wear. 
 
He drove better design based on business and user needs.
  • The business need – no one will buy a phone with an easily scratched face.
  • The user need – a durable phone face that supports touch-screen technology.
 
He gave the direction – engineers and designers found a way to make it work.
 
Product owners drive me to do my best work. That is the line of balance. They know what will work for their customers, they know what they need to have to sell a product. That's the collaboration with UX – how do we make this experience the simplest and best it can be with all of these constraints. Sometimes I'll do what I think a user wants to see, making the interface simple from my perspective – fewer clicks, fewer screens. But I haven't been on sales calls or heard from customers about what they really want in a product – that's where the product owners come in and give me their perspective to simplify a solution even further. They give UX teams a mission and drive to make experiences better.
 
And if you can add usability testing to that mix and get direct feedback and input from users, you have a hit!
 
UX team members are influencers. We are experts in making interfaces easy and providing guidance about how users think, how simple they sometimes want things, how trends are forming, and other observations. There’s no way a UX team could solely own the UX for a large-scale product – there are too many factors to consider – from financial to technical to marketing to sales.
 
But UX can present options that we believe solves the problem defined by the business.
 
If anything, it is our responsibility as UX professionals to:
  • Outline the problem we are really solving for 
  • Confirm with the business that we have defined the right problem and concerns
  • Think through all of the issues and risks surrounding the problem and potential solutions
  • Research and discuss ideas about how users perceive problem (and if it is a problem to them)
  • Determine how users may want to interact with a system to solve that problem (based assumptions on research, experience, or on what other sites do)
  • Create as many solution options as possible to consider 
  • Outline the pros and cons of each solution
Design can be subjective, but it is our responsibility to keep it based on facts and leverage design as tool to solve problems.
 
Sometimes, the business will look to the UX team to create visualizations early in the process. And this is ok – in fact, this needs to happen so everyone is aligned with the vision. UX isn't driving the process. UX is documenting ideation, helping the business better understand what the product needs to do by putting the abstract ideas of software into a concrete picture of UI interactions.
 
 
At times, team contributions in this process can get a little bumpy. 
 
At one extreme - UX competes with the product owner to own the product.
 
Yes, UX becomes mini-me business/product owner.
 
I have heard this behavior described by a number of scrum masters and have observed this first-hand myself. In fact, early on in my career, I acted this way as well (I'm embarrassed to admit it, but it's often a newbie mistake). There is often a fine line between product owner and UX and who owns what.
 
Ownership is often determined by fiscal responsibility, and UX doesn't usually get that opportunity (the product owner does). At least for me, that keeps the debate simple and straightforward. If you don't have revenue or fiscal responsibility for something in any way, you just don't own it.
 
Further, UX doesn’t have enough insight into the business side of things to drive decisions, but UX can provide options and advice.
 
Other reasons why can't UX make well-informed product decisions?
  • They don't usually attend budget meetings and understand the financial targets the product needs to hit
  • They don't usually fight for product funding and budget money
  • They don't usually attend sales calls and answer questions about product viability or why a product does/does not make sense
  • They aren't on all of the calls where the product owner collaborates with development to get the server to move faster, for example, or solve problem with the QA server and production
  • And more
If you are in UX and you get that level of visibility, then you may want to talk to your product owner about sharing responsibility for results. I just know that most of us in UX have our own work to do – and often those meetings and discussions aren't included in our day.
 
Competing with the product owner for ownership destroys the credibility of the UX team. UX may understand what the user wants in an interface and experience, but it only knows and understands what it sees on the surface. They just don't have enough insight into what's driving the decisions, consistent product history, and what the product REALLY needs to do.
 
Acting like mini-product owner discourages people from working with UX. The product owner doesn’t want to be told what to do by someone who doesn't fully understand the system, and will often avoid working with UX if this happens frequently. Why deal with such frustrations?
 
 
What happens when UX isn’t included in the process or the discussion?
 
Product owner/product manager owns the entire experience and makes all decisions.
 
UX thinks differently about the experience. They have empathy for users and can quickly see if a process is too complicated. They yearn for simplicity. Product owners don’t think like UX – and that’s a good thing, as Martha Stewart would say! We need people on projects who think differently to get to the right solution. Everyone has a different focus.
  • UX wants simplicity and ease of use
  • Product owners want what’s less expensive to implement and best for the user 
And simplicity isn't necessarily cheap. That's where the product owner's insight comes in handy. They understand the impact of budget, resources, and user needs – and they are responsible to create the best product possible to balance all of that.
 
Without this balance, product owners sometimes make ok design decisions, but with everything going on in their world, they don't think through all of the details, which arise during development and costs more money. Or they may make design decisions based on personal preferences rather than a user need-based decision and keep the solution choice more objective. 
 
 
Developers ignore the UX recommendations. 
 
Sometimes the developers may find the recommended UX to be too difficult to implement and decide to simplify it themselves. The problem is that developers sometimes make the UX simpler for the system to process a request – but not for the user. 
 
Or they may find UX isn't giving them timely answers. UX needs time to think about what the solution should be, but it shouldn't take more than a day or so. Often development will be on a deadline and just needs an answer – and they sometimes just make it up themselves to meet target deadlines.
 
And creating development-led software won't win over users. This is why computers were so scary in the 70s and 80s – they weren't designed to mirror how people think about problems, only how machines processed data and input. 
 
However, if the designers and developers aren't collaborating to find solutions that meet both teams needs, ignoring UX is a possible outcome.
 
I have found in my experience, if a developer thinks UX is coming up with an elegant, simple solution for the user, something they think is "cool," they will find a way to implement it. 
 
 
What does the UX team own for the UX?
 
UX should be an idea and innovation center. They should partner with:
  • Product owners to understand the challenges of the business
  • Users to understand what they want to do
  • Developers to understand how technically, the product could be made simpler
They should be creating ideas and making recommendations. They should empathize and think like their users. They should be up to date on current interface approaches, usability trends, and new ways of approaching digital experiences – from content to interactions to media.
 
They should provide advice and guidance. They provide options. They are a resource.
 
Again, UX needs to shift its role and influence the team. And influence can be powerful
 
Who owns the UX of an app?

Lessons learned from Agile Art

The other day, I participated in a fun activity – Virtual Agile Art facilitated by Giada Crispiels.  We participated on our phones and through Google docs. 

The instructions were that we would doodle for a while on our own, in the company of others in the same Google doc in our own spaces, and then doodle in a "community" setting in Google and talk to each other on the phone along the way. I knew only 1 person there before I participated (Elinor Slomba) – everyone else was new to me.

We started the activity by doodling. That took a lot of pressure off us to make a perfect drawing. We drew what came naturally to us. And it was fun was to watch other people doodle. Some made real drawings (a rooster, a bouquet of flowers), some made lines, some made squiggles, and I made curves and squiggles that I colored in (I always color corners and such. And yes, I color outside the lines!).

The best part was doodling together in a single, open space. It was like we were working together, but not on the same vision. Some on the call noticed how our doodles were starting to converge, in a way, with similar shaping and colors. In a way, we were getting a vision together.

It was a wonderful experience to work with others I haven't met before, online in real-time, reacting to a situation. I can't wait to do it again! And I learned a bunch from it.

What I learned about groups and virtual teams:

  • It's natural for a group of people to come to consensus – even if they live and work far away from each other. Once they start interacting, the best of everyone in the team emerges and the co-creating takes on a new level and persona.
  • You can learn a lot about people by their doodles and how they interact with other doodles. And it's a fun way to test the waters about collaboration.
  • Usually we collaborate to produce – it's rare that we can collaborate to create. We should be doing more of this! It's liberating!
  • What you do in meetings, in-person is similar to what you do on the phone and on a live, shared screen. I couldn't stay in the meeting longer, but I wanted to ask the others on the phone a bunch of questions about who they are, what they do, etc. I was a little challenged because I had a meeting right after and was at a client site, but if I did this focused in a room with no meeting to run to, I would have been trying to get to know the others on the call. And I would have done the same in person if I had to run to a meeting right after – clock watch and stay silent. We don't act too differently online or offline.
  • There were some technical challenges – but they weren't insurmountable. Some had issues with the phone or Google docs here and there, but it wasn't a show stopper from participating (almost as if a marker were broken or something similar). It's about perspective.

What I learned about myself:

  • I don't like lines/boundaries to keep me restrained. When our personal boxes for doodling were removed, I felt relieved and happier. 
  • When I doodle, I like to draw "s" shapes and give a 3D shading to things. I also like to color in corners and gaps. I reflected on this later and in many ways, that's reflective of my personality – I usually find gaps and like to fill them in, adding value to the end product where there's space to do it. 
  • I prefer working in a group setting. It was ok for me to doodle in my box alone, but I much preferred the experience figuring out where to doodle with everyone else.
  • I enjoy adding to other people's work and not working alone. I had fun making my s's and coloring corners, but I felt like I added more value doing that in a larger doodle setting.
  • To me, being virtual isn't isolating. I was hanging on the phone, kinda quiet, but I'm always quiet around new people. 

I look forward to the next virtual adventure in Agile Art!

 

 

Lessons learned from Agile Art