Launch and Iterate

We love to talk about launching and iterating, but too often that feels like an excuse for launching a sub-par product. It’s as if the team is being evaluated on shipping time instead of the product’s quality.

That being said, I think the best way to get feedback about a product is to put it infront of users. You learn a ton. But that doesn’t mean it has to be 100% launched and public. You can use prototypes or just limited-access production code.

You also have to contend that 1st experiences do matter. If something feels confusing, people will likely continue to see it as confusing. If something feels empowering, the same applies.

Once a product is launched, it feels like a milestone has been met. The team is gives each other high fives and drinking beer. And fixing the small things (or even large things) that everyone was going to talk about doing after launch (the iterate part of launch and iterate) suddenly becomes less exciting. Iteration essentially becomes maintenance. I’ve noticed (in myself as well) that it’s a hell of a lot more interesting to work on making a product awesome pre-launch than post-launch.

So here’s my plea: figure out why you’re launching? Is it because the competition is chasing you? Is it because you’re trying to meet a quarterly goal? Are you running out of money? Are you looking for user feedback sooner than later?

Some of those are valid. Some of those are scary. Just please think twice before “launching” a product you don’t consider done.

0 notes

Real Life Interaction Design.

I’m less and less interested in how people interact with technology than how people interact with each other.

Silicon Valley seems to have a pretty good handle on designing how people interact with technology. Our interfaces are pretty (mostly), our widgets fade in and out nicely (sometimes). Whatever.

But the new definition of social technology is looking at the pretty widgets on our devices without being social. And this interaction actually can hinder real-life social interaction because we’re not used to talking or confronting people in real life (as we are via technology).

And example: Remember that time you thought about saying something awkward or critical or tough to say, but then told yourself you would do it later via email, text, survey, whatever? And that’s not a bad thing. What is bad, though, is that it’s often harder to understand the sentiment and tone of what you said when it’s delivered electronically.

I can think of a million beautiful ways that people interact with technology. I can think of far less ways that technology helps us interact in real life.

I’m unsatisfied with this trajectory. Hopefully I’ll flush out some more thoughts on it as I keep posting.

0 notes

"Instead of showing your work to your colleagues with a few mumbled words and a shrug and expecting them to get its sheer brilliance, it’s important to involve them from the start, making everyone feel invested and part of the solution. Map out the future you see in front of you, and make them walk the same journey."

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/becoming-better-communicators/

0 notes

NO I DO NOT WANT HELP I JUST WANT TO BUY STUFF

NO I DO NOT WANT HELP I JUST WANT TO BUY STUFF

3 notes

Guess what’s most important here. Hint: it’s tiny.

Guess what’s most important here. Hint: it’s tiny.

1 note

Why Waiting is Torture

Don’t remember if I posted this when it came out, but it’s got great implications for UX IMHO.

0 notes

SEO and UX, a more in-depth description

Every webmaster should read this.

2 notes

SEO+UX
0 notes

I think it’s a good thing that people so high/mighty/public are talking about user experiences. Especially when it makes its way onto the front page of the new york times.

I think it’s a good thing that people so high/mighty/public are talking about user experiences. Especially when it makes its way onto the front page of the new york times.

2 notes

"Jürgen Krusche from the Institute for Contemporary Art Research, at the Zurich University of the Arts, brought to the table the argument that ugliness—a word he used to describe the sort of chaotic, patchwork wildness or messiness that a city garners when it is left to fall apart slightly—is what enables vibrancy to happen. What’s more, he argued that that vibrancy is more important to quality of life than “beauty,” which is often defined by cleanliness and order."

http://blog.bmwguggenheimlab.org/2012/07/toward-an-uglier-architecture-can-we-keep-building-and-keep-the-mess/

0 notes