Disruption versus Usability: has UXD become TOO good?
8th July 09
Posted in design
Mulling over the various excellent posts springing up on why there isn’t more great work in the digital space it struck me that one area rarely discussed is the fundamentally different definitions of what constitutes “great”.
Traditional agencies are instinctively drawn to disruptive work-work that stops the consumer in their tracks and forces them to pay attention. Digital specialists on the other hand are focussed on a smooth and seamless user experience. Ideas that disrupt this experience risk increasing bounce rates from a site for designers working to the 10 second stay-or-go “rule” . This tension between disruption and usability is so profound it’s hardly surprising that we struggle to find a common understanding of what great looks like, much less deliver it.
Traditional agencies in the digital space (and indeed traditional digital agencies) are easily seduced by the power of Flash and the wonders of animation; we want attention and spectacle but what happens next? Why should the user stay, what are we asking them to do and where should they go next? The campaign microsite is perhaps the prime expression of this tendency-as Iain Tate puts it, impressively punchily, in Campaign:
“No one cares about your bloody microsite. In 2009 the flashy high production value microsite is finally starting to feel irrelevant. Sites that seem to do everything, but deliver nothing.”
At the opposite end of the spectrum, design in the digital space has become so seamless, effortless and professional that it’s arguably all getting a bit predictable. Usability was (quite rightly) the holy grail for many years, reaching its apotheosis in Jakob Nielsen’s controversial useit.com-the ultimate in functionality. Now it seems though that perhaps every easy, effortless site is much like every other easy, effortless site.
- Jakob Nielsen’s useit.com
Likewise, Nielsen’s partner Donald Norman’s seminal book on “Emotional Design” argues that attractive design makes consumers more likely to solve problems and find solutions, albeit not at the expense of core usability:
“Attractive things make people feel good, which in turn makes them think more creatively. How does that makes something easier to use? Simple, by making it easier to find solutions to the problems they encounter”
One might argue the same of wit, entertainment and surprise-of sites that challenge the conventions of user interface and offer something fresh. Dontclick.it for example disrupts our expectations of user interface and forces us to interact with the site in a new and different way. It does challenge familiar behaviours but (I would argue) intrigue makes us stick with it rather than back away. Likewise, Orange’s “Never Ending” website no doubt breaks all kinds of rules but offers a marriage of idea and interface that opens up intriguing possibilities.
dontclick.it by the Institute for Interactive Research
So how can we best mash up these two apparently opposed agendas? How else can we marry idea and interface to deliver fresh, absorbing brand experiences and what might we learn about navigation and user experience in the process that might move us beyond clicks and pages?
Perhaps by starting with an open and humble mashing up of old and new world skills, as discussed at length in Mel’s excellent post on “Marketing Mashup” and by using that mash up to think in new ways and develop new outputs:
- Acknowledging how much we have to learn from each other’s instincts.
- Marrying the ability to make on-line experiences simple, useful and usable with the ability to shock, surprise and shake up perceptions.
- Bringing delight to simple experiences and usable interfaces to disruptive ideas.
Orange's Never Ending Website
13 comments on “Disruption versus Usability: has UXD become TOO good?”
or sign in using Facebook Connect
Enter your personal information to the left, or sign in with your Facebook account by clicking on the button below:
Patricia McDonald
Funny, I was thinking about something similar. A good user experience used to be one you didn’t notice. I think it’s time to change it to one that surprises and delights (much as I hate that phrase)…
Nice article and a good topic for discussion.
I’m not sure I’d equate disruption with useful, though, even if we do enjoy the surprise of finding our expectations shattered.
Both dontclick.it and orange’s site are interesting and fun, but imagine if there were something on those site that you wanted to find - they’re just plain hard to navigate.
I do agree that aesthetics can be a major differentiator, and as Lynch and Norman point out, things that look good make us feel good and we’re more likely to interact with them creatively and productively.
So obviously we need to look at the purpose of the site or interface - is it disruption for disruption’s sake, it is supposed to be useful, is it supposed to be engaging (however you choose to define that), is it supposed to provide a call to action, or deliver a message…
An interesting study in the May 15 NeuroImage (Vol. 46, No. 1) showed that people are more likely to remember “low-key, fact-based anti-smoking ads that attention-grabbing messages.” So outrageous might not be the way to go if you have a message to convey.
But it also turns out that the mind is very receptive to new information when it’s presented AFTER some sort of shock.
We (I’m a media psychologist and clinical hypnotherapist in addition to heading the Creative Technology track at VCU Brandcenter) use this in NLP and hypnosis, creating a pattern-interrupt (disruption) followed quickly by suggestions that we want the subjects to follow. You’ll notice that many effective speakers will do the same - they do or say something unexpected as a lead in to something important that they want the audience to do or think.
You’ll see, or rather hear, this in music as well. Dynamic range (changes in volume and musical density), and unexpected harmonic movements are often used as a pattern interrupt leading into the bridge or chorus - it helps set listeners up to accept the hook.
We can take the same approach in interface design - use some sort of pattern interrupt to get attention, followed closely by suggestions on what we want our visitors to do next. Those suggestions can be obvious directions, or they might even be natural guidance through the content or a sales funnel - depends on the purpose of the site.
What I’d like to see avoided is disruption for the sake of disruption (at least within the context of the business solutions we as marketers are supposed to be providing), and definitely a move towards mitigating pure and reasonably bland usability with dynamic range and aesthetic sensibilities.
I think they can co-exist; the challenge is in finding the right balance.
There is plenty of excellent work in the digital space. Perhaps not in advertising per se but digital encompasses a lot more than advertising. To that point: what was the last great idea you can recall? For me it’s not advertising.
Design is a part of marketing, it relies on creating emotional connections and points of difference. I don’t think interrupting or disrupting a browsing experience, or any experience, is going to be very beneficial– difference, doesn’t imply disruption. The key is to create an experience that is different enough that it attracts, but not so different that it throws you off. It’s similar to a woman who is attractive versus a woman who dresses inappropriately: one gets attention naturally, the other gets attention for all the wrong reasons.
Some excellent comments-keep ‘em coming! Absolutely agree that it’s time to move beyond the ideal user experience being one you don’t notice to being one you notice because it was delightul in some way. And I love the idea of pattern interrupt-I think that’s exactly the point, that disrupting a familiar pattern in some way can surprise and engage, perhaps followed by or seguing into a more familiar experience. Of course, to Mark’s point, there will always be times when we need a simple, transactional interface but not necessarily every time.
Good post.
Traditional media is usually a “view” medium. This generally rewards Disruption: something unexpected is exciting — often, it’s exactly what we’re watching for.
Digital is usually a “do” medium. This generally rewards Usability. If I’m trying to get a piece of information and move on, I really don’t want to relearn how to use my mouse, or find the easter egg navigation. Something unexpected is emphatically not what I’m looking for.
Disruption and Usability each have their place, and neither is correct 100% of the time. The first job of the designer is to understand what sort of experience the user wants.
It’s interesting that last real paradigm shift in the ability of delivering new user interface experiences on the web, without resorting to Flash, was enabled by AJAX and the new JavaScript renaissance typified by Web2.0.
The technology then existed to create “single-page” interfaces without resorting to classic Hypertext, page by page.
This created new “useful” interface techniques, the light-box, the auto-complete, the automatic polling update (as seen in Gmail) but did little to improve the beautiful, aesthetic even disruptive experience that blends with seamless usability.
Part of the limiting factors then were slow JavaScript engines and the dinosaur that is IE6.
This is changing, IE8 (to a degree), Safari 4, Chrome and Firefox 3.5 are far, far faster and with support for Canvas and some HTML 5 we will probably see this technology enable another shift. This will allow beautiful experiences to be weaved into existing user-interface web elements.
The chrome experiments give an early peak into these experiences. http://www.chromeexperiments.com/
Maybe there’s just too much choice online.
For instance, try giving a spoilt kid a new toy that’s similar to something they already have and see how much they care.
I used to be in the usability Taliban, but I realise how wrong I was. We were taken to camps in the Swedish tundra. We were cut off from friends and family, starved and ‘beasted’.
I know what I did was wrong now
[...] Disruption versus Usability: has UXD become TOO good? « BBH Labs (tags: digital usability advertising design WebDesign) [...]
[...] the somewhat different paths Great Designs Should Be Experienced and Not Seen and Disruption versus Usability: has UXD become TOO good? and Design With Intent: How designers can influence [...]
A response to: Disruption versus Usability: has UXD become TOO good? (http://bbh-labs.com/disruption-versus-usability-has-uxd-become-too-good)
This is an Interesting and well presented post. Unfortunately, the premise is utterly flawed.
UXD has NOT become TOO good
• when the average score for checkout for 30 leading retailers is 30%. (http://www.revolutionmagazine.com/DigitalPM/News/918531/Leading-retailers-basket-cases-when-comes-online-checkout/?DCMP=EMC-Media-PM-Bulletin)
• When online satisfaction scores run at only 67% , and one unhappy customer tell 17 other customers/potential customers (See Eric Reiss) as well as all the other knock on effects on Future purchasing, Loyalty and Market share.
“design in the digital space has become so seamless, effortless and professional that it’s arguably all getting a bit predictable”
The implication is that this is a “bad thing”.
Maybe for designers and possibly for brand marketers, but definitely not for visitors or consumers.
Would you like EVERY toaster you use to behave differently, in a disruptive fashion? How about every car, or even every 5th car, (http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/1/13/The_Homer.jpg)?
The crux of the difference lies in what the agencies in the digital and analogue space are trying to do.
ATL is about catching attention and maintaining front-of-mind in 15, 20, or 30 second spots or locations.
Digital is about fulfilling a purpose. Not functionality, a purpose. A purpose can be anything from:
• an aesthetic thoughtful experience, – Inspire me, now! (http://szymon.tumblr.com/)
• an informational experience — Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_Bogle_Hegarty)
• a transactional experience, — Williams Sonoma (http://www.williams-sonoma.com/products/6126122/index.cfm?pkey=ccookware-top-rated&cm_src=hero)
• to an experience — Orange’s never ending page (http://unlimited.orange.co.uk/flash/go)
The common thread here is that a customer or user is are interrupted by ATL from what they are currently doing, whereas they go to a website with a purpose in mind.
Consequently, the true mash-up here, and measurement of the designer(s)’s talent is how they can marry the design patterns (e.g., faceted navigation + lists of product or content) that are emerging with great emotional / aesthetic design to create an experience, not just an activity
[...] this post by Patricia McDonald, she [...]