Recent Talk: Audio UX

I recently gave a talk at the Milwaukee UX meet up. I spoke about the user experience of audio. It was meant to be short (less than 10 minutes).

Here’s the deck.

Some notes and summaries per slide:

  1. The user experience of audio is deeper than we think.
  2. I’ve had about five years experience working with audio through my company HarQen. We’ve transitioned a lot, but a mainstay has been the capturing and playback of voice. Right now, HarQen can be called a Voice Asset Management company—we manage the voice data layer for enterprise companies.
  3. We know that audio is linear. It has a beginning and an end. You don’t know where you are at any given point unless you look at the timestamp.
  4. In the 2D world, we have several tools that guide and aid us. We have things like bold contrast, bullet points, color, layout, etc.
  5. So what if we could apply those 2D tools to audio? How could we do it? My hypothesis is through metadata linked to timestamps.
  6. I did a demo of our two products, Voice Advantage and Symposia.
  7. All interactions with computers come down to one of two things: input and output. The key thing is that output is mostly useless or nonexistent without input. So the success of good audio consumption hangs on the related input.
  8. Audio is really nothing more than communication. Thus, we can learn a lot by thinking about audio in the context of communication theory. (I went into talking about various theories.)
  9. To date, experiences with audio have been mostly synchronous. The main way you interact with voice and audio is with real time communication. (Excluding music here.)
  10. Well, unless you count voicemail.
  11. Which we do at HarQen…
  12. Because it’s our competitor, just like email is Basecamp’s competitor.
  13. So perhaps a way to heighten the input (read: metadata generation) of audio which would aid the output (read: listening of audio) is by rethinking about how we can make more audio interactions asynchronous?

Naming As The First Step

Knowing what to call something is surprisingly important.

Getting the name right is not as important.

But those moments at the very onset of something new are vital. Committing to give what lies before you a name and calling it that has turned out to be crucial to all success I’ve encountered.

When you have a name, then you have the possibility of your team understanding the vision/objective/goal/strategy. When you don’t have a name, then it’s practically guaranteed misunderstanding and inefficiencies will exist. And those are the heart disease and cancer of teamwork.

To extend the thought: thus, branding early isn’t too soon of a project. Especially since it impacts the quality of the package.

Summarizing Job To Be Done Theory

Over the past several months, I’ve found myself explaining Job To Be Done theory (JTBD) to friends, colleagues, and strangers, and each time I’ve learned more about how to summarize it. I wanted to gather all my thoughts into a concrete article so that in the future when I’m attempting to explain JTBD, I can just link them to this. I hope you find this valuable too.

Job To Be Done theory states that all consumers hire a product or service to do a job for them. Marketers and businesses should thus segment not based on demographics or psychographics, but on the situation a consumer is in where he or she attempts to complete a job. Brands who get this build a product or service around that singular job to be done. They put their entire company’s weight towards it, and become what’s known as a “purpose brand”. When you think quick furniture you can put in your compact car, who do you think of? It was probably IKEA. Its brand immediately popped into your head because it’s purpose-driven.

IKEA, as mentioned above, is a great first example. It has never been copied because it doesn’t segment based on demographics or income or whatever else. It re-segmented the furniture buying market by focusing on a singular job: quickly furnishing a room/apartment/house with well designed products. The entire company is integrated towards that end. Manufacturing, shipping, catalogs, websites, even the buying experience. And don’t forget about the brand-famous home assembly process. You can learn more about Clayton Christensen‘s insight on IKEA in this 5-minute video.

The “milkshake example” is the quintessential moment where Christensen and his colleagues flushed out the theory. It’s the most widely talked about anecdote available. This 5-minute video of Clayton giving a snazzy lecture recaps it.

This HBR article gives a good overview of how the theory is used to re-segment markets. It also includes an original explanation of the milkshake example.

Bob Moesta is one of the initial pioneers of the theory. He runs a consultancy called The Rewired Group, and has a list of resources. This Forbes article gives a quick example of one of his most famous anecdotes to explain the theory.

Bob and Chris Spiek give an excellent overview of JTBD put up against how people buy homes in this short seven-minute video.

I have purchased the two major HBR and MIT articles Clayton published introducing the theory in grand scale. I encourage you to pick up a copy.

Finally, for the more adventurous, Horace Dediu hosted Bob on his Critical Path podcast. An excellent hour-long discussion ensued that recapped many of the stories above, as well as additional insight. It’s very engaging, enlightening, and the best teaching tool for the theory. But it is an hour.

Luxury Warfare

I had a conversation the other day with my colleague Kevin. He thinks that the future will be separated by those who can do what they want and those who can’t.

I like discussions like this because I tend to create binary views, so debating this versus that is fun.

I think a lot of what we consider segmenting factors in society—race, class, education, health, etc.—are actually subsets of this bigger idea that humans either do what they want or they don’t.

In the past, if you were black in America, life was hard(er). But mostly, it was hard because you couldn’t do what you want—it’s just that it was to a degree we all hope to never experience. Same could be said for religious separations, like Jews during World War 2. Or by sex, with women being relegated unfairly for eons. And so on. These were all extremely broad, instantly limiting factors.

The good news is that all these past barriers appear to be dissolving every day based on the hard work of many people. I think we can all say that globally race, sex, ethnicity, and even class are becoming less of a hurdle towards allowing someone to, in effect, do what they want, relatively speaking. That goes without saying that obviously the ills of old still exist, and en masse. But progress can be found across the board.

Choosing what you want to do then being able to do it is still an elusive endeavor, however, and I don’t think humans will ever fix it at scale. So, then we have to ask ourselves what will be the limiting factor in the future, especially if the traits of old are going away? This was the juicy heart of the conversation, and the one worth most thought.

Kevin and I agreed that it comes down to perceived lifestyle versus actual lifestyle, which in turn is essentially a macrobrew of your race, sex, ethnicity, education, environment, class, and everything else. Life situations and decisions, whether forced or chosen, basically dictate your ability to do what you want, and, when put up against what you desire to be doing at that time, can have a satisfying or horrifying outcome. (I guess or somewhere in between. Darn binary views!)

The ironic part is a lot of times “doing what we want” and its outcome dictates what you can choose to do in the future.

For example, let’s say a couple decides to have a child at age 25 compared to 35. Children are really expensive. The last anecdotal figure I heard is a child will cost you well over a million dollars in its 18-year reign, and the ROI is predominantly personal happiness provided you nurture a healthy relationship. Money isn’t everything, though—figuratively and literally. A child also consumes most of your time when they are young. Many hobbies and ambitions are sacrificed to care for your offspring. (At times I think we as children fail to realize this until we are actually parents, then have such appreciation towards our own forever.)

Many sociologists believe teen pregnancy can be the biggest limiting factor keeping poor classes poor. More often than not, the expense and attention the child demands coupled with a potentially lackluster support system prevent the teen mother from pursuing an education that would be the catalyst out of one class to another, preventing her from “doing what she wants”.

Here are some other examples that have the same affect:

  • Taking a job in a specific location
  • Committing a felony
  • Not getting an education beyond high school
  • Accumulating massive debt (like by getting an education beyond high school)
  • Picking a specific, limiting career
  • Getting married (although great, it does change your life scope)
  • Leading an unhealthy life (diet, drugs, etc.)
  • Or simply having personal beliefs or traits that make you fearful to do the things you want

And these are just some examples of life choices that we make which change our scope of future decisions, thus creating impenetrable laws blocking us from what we want to do.

Now lets say a 20-something decides to phone-in the decade. Ten years of escalating vices all in the name of never “growing up”. What might be the motif of every Judd Apatow movie script is actually an emerging lifestyle among my generation. What used to be 17 is the new 24. Fear of being “tied down” to anything serious like jobs, careers, relationships, apartments, beliefs, hobbies, and kids—in aggregate, “responsibility”—is basically an evolutionary trait enabled by an unintentional alchemy since the 1980s.

It’s a well known fact that parents spend their entire life trying to make their kids’ lives better than theirs. We reached a tipping point in the 80s, which aggressively excelled in the 20 years following, that turned the lives of Generation X and, more specifically, Mellennials into a cake walk. Basically, Baby Boomers were both wonderful and shitty parents. The spoils we had as children allowed us to continue to not face hardship until we reached our 30s.

And then college happened. A bachelors became the new high school diploma. Everyone needed to go to college. The massive increase in enrollment was part byproduct of our parents wanting to do only what’s best for us (and the shear number of them who could now do that), and part social Darwinism (good luck getting a job like your parents if you don’t have a degree). But most importantly, the fact that the majority of my generation went to college meant that we had another four years—at least—without responsibility. We were free to explore ourselves, the world, possibilities. And frankly, we kind of like it. College was the biggest enabler to allowing us to “do what we want”.

Millions of 20-somethings are now stuck, though, as the arms race in this luxury warfare continue to escalate. They are looking at the choices and non-choices during this new century as the keys to being able to do what they want, or force to do what they don’t.

Book Review: Made To Stick

Image Credit: Amazon

Communicating ideas and, frankly, persuasion are becoming more vital in the work place. I’ve grown to realize this in the past few years. Made To Stick by Chip and Dan Heath is a wonderful book summarizing the best concepts around making your ideas stick in other people’s minds.

If I had to give a singular tweet for a review, it would be this:

Abstraction is the luxury of the expert. The Curse of Knowledge prohibits simple concreteness.

It really does come down to that. Remember that you had to gain a lot of expertise to come to “The Answer”, but then that time and expertise works against you when telling others about it. You can communicate effective strategy or make an idea stick by focusing on the “Telling Others” part, not finding “The Answer” precursor.

There were some really good nuggets in the book:

  • Good metaphors are generative
  • Metaphors are the Holy Grail of simplicity (pretty meta)
  • A way to keep people’s attention is to create a need for closure
  • Language is often abstract, but life is not
  • Concreteness is the root of making ideas stick. So what is concreteness? If you can examine something with your senses, it’s concrete.
  • Belief is one thing, but to persuade action, people have to care
  • The one reliable way of making people care is invoking self-interest
  • Features aren’t emotional, but benefits are
  • If you’re a great spotter, you’ll always trump a great creator
  • Strategy is a guide to behavior; thus a bad strategy is one which doesn’t drive action

Mostly, the book provided great anecdotes and analysis on: Keep it simple, keep it concrete, tell great stories, be unexpected, emotional, and credible.

I strongly recommend the book to everyone. It’s a quick, valuable read.

The Designer’s Toolbox

I recently stumbled across two inspiring examples of clear, simple user interfaces. (Hat tip: RJS.) Both are mobile apps, but perfect representations of what a UI should be.

They were also great reminders of the tools we as designers have and often forget about, including myself. First, the products:

Designers have a toolbox. Inside are tools, which include:

  • Contrast
  • Color
  • Grid
  • Proportion
  • Line
  • Shape (and iconography)
  • Sound
  • Consistency
  • Motion
  • Texture
  • Photography
  • And others I’m sure I’m forgetting

(Some may argue that all of these are subsets of Contrast. I personally don’t use proportion enough.)

The clearest, simplest, most effective user interfaces relentlessly focus on the minimal execution of these basic tools. It’s when we as designers make complex combinations of these tools that the UI begins to muddy. The higher level concepts like affordance, heuristics, taxonomy, and so forth—although valuable—often help us forget the effectiveness and elegance of the simple use of these core tools.

I find the toolbox metaphor useful when talking about design with others. I say

You have a toolbox. Inside you find a hammer, screwdriver, saw, and many other tools. Each tool has it’s own purpose. Sometimes you might use two tools together, often you might just choose one. Generally, you choose a hammer to pound a nail or screwdriver to fasten a screw. So if you have 100 tools in your tool box, think through which one is the best for the job ahead. You might choose tool 87, 92, and 14. The more tools you have, the more tools you understand—the more options you get to choose from.

When others think of concepts like grid or color as tools to get a job done, they become more comfortable understanding you don’t use a dozen tools to pound a nail.

I find this explanation to be transferable to other disciplines, like marketing or programming.

Book Review: Design for Hackers

Image Credit: Design for Hackers newsletter

I’m a sucker for books on design. In high school and college, I’d read as many as I could whenever I had time. Throughout the years, though, I’ve noticed less challenge and inspiration derived from these books. This is probably because I’m reaching a rate of marginal return on the subject, yet I admit there is a lot I still have yet to learn. Further expansion of growth will not be from reading design books anymore, but rather practical application and practice of the concepts.

So the past few years I’ve avoided design books or articles with beginner to intermediate content. But Design for Hackers: Reverse-Engineering Beauty by David Kadavy caught my eye. The promise of a programmatic (or better yet scientific) approach to the touchy-feely explanations of design concepts from past books excited me.

Regrettably, the book was still a level or two below the challenge I sought. There was not much new to me, although I did find the chapter on proportions to be enlightening. I appreciated the amount of scientific explanation on the design fundamentals, but just about all of it was material I’ve read somewhere else. The most entertaining part of the book for me were the examples Kadavy used to explain composition, color theory, etc. It was fun to analyze Seurat’s painting along with him.

With that said, I do think the author’s real target audience will find immense value in the book. Developers (or hackers) who want to understand the most important fundamentals of design should read this book. I have no doubt it will be the best book they can find to help them level up several steps. Even design novices will find it engaging. Design professionals, however, should probably stick to Python tutorials and your 2012 resolutions.

2011 Favorites

A list of some of my favorites from 2011.

Albums

2011 wasn’t a very deep year for music, but there were some outstanding efforts submitted. Overall the quantity of quality was lackluster compared to 2007 through 2010. I think it’s because I found less new artists. I’m finding myself now looking more forward to new albums of recent favorites, such as Grizzly Bear, Bear in Heaven (lol at bear references), Floating Points, Luke Abbott and more in 2012 than I am new artists out of the blue.

I flip flopped between Real Estate and Washed Out for months. I loved both releases. In the end, I thought Real Estate did some things that will make me listen to the album a lot more 10 years from now than Washed Out, and it was the difference.

Julian Lynch is one of the most underrated artists out there. He has a completely unique style. Terra is his best record to date.

Twerps and The War On Drugs were good finds for me this year as well. Very happy I found them. But I, belatedly, decided to go with The Field to round out my top 5.

  • Real Estate – Days
  • Washed Out – Within And Without
  • The Field – Looping State Of Mind
  • Julian Lynch – Terra
  • Twerps – Twerps

Songs

Individual songs that stood out to me. Bon Iver’s album is highly celebrated, as well it should be. But the album as a whole had gaps, which kept it off my top 5. “Holocene” though is my favorite song from this year, and shows why people are going crazy for Justin Vernon. I applaud his new celebrity!

Cass McCombs is one of my favorite artists, period. He had two albums this year! Many good singles, and “The Same Thing” was the best.

Gold Leaves was a pleasant find this year. “The Silver Lining” was an exceptional take on an “Arthur and Yu” sound. The Rapture had a very weak follow up release this year, but the single “How Deep Is Your Love” was my favorite party jam. tUnE-yArDs is as unique as it gets, and “Bizness” is a jarring yet fun exploration on being yourself.

Rdio playlists of my favorite songs from Fall and Winter. (I didn’t start Rdio until half way through 2011. I recommend it to all!)

Movies

I missed a lot of movies this year, I admit. My list is probably missing some really good ones.

  • Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
  • Hanna
  • Bridesmaids
  • The Ides of March
  • Anonymous

Articles

I read a lot of long-form articles, which is different for me from years past. I would like to thank Instapaper for this lifestyle change. Here are the five best articles I read in 2011.

Book Review: Flow

Image credit

I originally wrote a lengthy review for Flow from Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. But then I realized everything could be said in just a few paragraphs.

Psychology has traditionally been considered a soft science, but that has since changed since the first dot-com boom. Flow is a shining example of this new-found scientific legitimacy.

A few weeks ago I heard an entrepreneur say that the best innovation we can do in the next decade is to make everything we’ve made in the previous decade more usable for more people. We don’t need new technology; we need current technology to be better designed.

Csikszentmihalyi’s book is the blue print for that idea. It can be summed up with this illustration.

If you give people too much of a challenge for their skills, they will have anxiety. If you give them not enough, they will be bored. It’s only with the proportion is just right for the task at hand that they will accomplish the task and feel good doing so.

The technology we’ve made so far has suffered from being outside of the flow channel. Csikszentmihalyi’s findings give us insight, as designers and developers, on how to make our products more useful. His recommendations will lead to higher adoption and retention rates.

Psychology has real, growing practicality for technologists. I recommend everyone who works with software to give it a quick read through.