We get a ton of hits on our Agile Approach page so I thought I’d take an opportunity to give some more background on our methods and share some of our experiences.  The Limina Team comes from a traditional Waterfall or Rational Unified Process software development background.  Our consulting history and practice methodology is an adaptation of best practices developed in-house by user experience professionals and collaborators who’s expertise run the full spectrum of user interface; research, analysis, strategy, management, interaction modeling, information architecture, design and development.  As a result, we have developed a suite of services that can be applied throughout the full span of the product development lifecycle.

As a practice, our methodology has been flexible enough to add value to every client engagement in our portfolio.  As our team engaged on increasingly more frequent Agile/SCRUM driven teams, a trend which began for us in 2006, we needed to make some adaptations to keep pace with rapid iterations.  The following is a rough breakdown of the adaptations we made by “activity”.

We tool a look at the activities and deliverables we execute in a more verbose and lengthy cycle and dissected each phase to  determine which tasks and deliverables dovetail with the Project, Incremental Release and Sprint cycles of an agile project life cycle. Each level invariably incorporates tasks and deliverables from the traditional Analysis, Definition, Design, Development phases.  Here’s what we came up with:

Product Cycle: Assuming 6-9 months.

Intense Observation and Analysis activity in the all important “Phase Zero” a period of three to six weeks.  In the absence of the waterfall lead time, this is the cycle where UX research seeks to identify the following in rank order:

• Task / Activity Model
• User Role Model
• Business Stakeholder Goals
• User Goals
• Competitive Analysis

Release planning: “Iteration Zero”.

While rough concepts are being established to determine technical frameworks and baseline use cases, the UX team takes 2 weeks to elaborate on the primary storyboards to cover feature definitions in the first iteration.

The At this phase, requirement gaps have been identified, rudimentary user typologies have been identified, development road map has been established based on technical complexity, feasibility, business benefit and user benefit.  Relevant personas for the user stories and features are drafted, usage scenarios are  drilled down, the draft interaction model is established and the associated process flows and wire frames are generated.  This iterative cycle is a lather, rinse,and repeat.

Ideally after 2 weeks iteration zero kicks off user stories, wire frames and mockups and will be available for itteration one development work.

While UX team is cranking out user stories and related assets for iteration two, custom asset creation and spot UI reviews run in parallel in support of iteration one.

This  completes the lather, rinse, repeat cycle.

Meanwhile, persona assets, user stories and related assets are aggregated up for incremental release review.  Any usability or user experience hurdles are triaged and assessed for re-insertion into the iteration plan.  Instructive text, user help documentation are written and evaluated for release.

Benefits and Lessons Learned

As a seasoned UX practitioner, I know the value of getting the requirements right before writing a line of code and my initial reaction to agile development was harsh to say the least.  It’s just a temporary jolt.  Once you get in the swing of rapid iteration and continuous design, you barely miss lengthy requirements gathering and documentation.  The clear benefit is low upfront project spend and near term return on investment.  In traditional models, upfront costs on analysis, strategy, definition and design don’t immediately translate to rapid deployment.  And the upfront cost is significantly higher to account for  end to end specification prior to development.

In an agile team, the analysis, strategy and definition are more light weight and design an development run in parallel.  If high yielding business benefits are addressed in the early release, you will be seeing a return on the investment   earlier than you would have if you staggered the design and development in waterfall fashion.

One major lesson learned for Agile UX in practice:  It is absolutely critical to get one or two iterations ahead of the development team. One slip, and you lose any runway for giving yourself the time  necessary to construct successful solution to meet the needs of your users.

Happy Sprinting UXers

-Jon Fukuda

A nice percentage of our web traffic comes to us, believe it or not, from Google images. As we started to analyze the traffic we found that our Agile Usability Model was one of our main attractions.

Agile Usability is clearly blowing up and becoming a much more efficient model for addressing continuous design and development, so it’s no surprise that this page in particular has piqued some interest. We had not, however, anticipated that our concept was something someone would lift almost to the letter.

A small IT and Development Outsourcing company, BMBO, decided that they liked the visual concept enough to take roughly 90% of the design and visual concepts intact, while altering (minimally) the content.

Joost van de Wijgerd, Founder and Advisor to BMBO, has yet to respond to our email which acknowledges the uncanny resemblance. There’s no telling if they’ll attribute the design (which you may note they ironically watermarked as their own) to Limina, but in the mean time… we’re flattered.

How to better incorporate customer feedback into your engineering driven product.

Limina is often faced with products that have been in the market for years with little to no professional user centered and UI design methodology applied. It’s typically apparent in the interface before delving into the history of development through issues including but, not limited to the following examples:

• inconsistent UI patterning
• obtuse, or in many cases, non-existent workflows where users are either left to their own devices to develop their own approach to the system or spend time in manuals or training
• random color and graphic treatments with little or no usage rationale
• core features and functions hidden in right click menus with no alternative access
• extensive use of dialogs and workspace changes to complete primary tasks
• random and inconsistent screen layout
• chop-shop iconography, cut and pasted from other applications

Most of these issues can be attributed to an engineering driven culture where usability has not been a core part of the methodology. Sure, the code is clean, the feature works, QA and Unit Tests have passed with flying colors… but is it usable or useful from an end to end experience?

A typical engineering approach to incorporating customer feedback
As a stop-gap to implementing user centered design practices, we’ve heard: “We’re meeting with our customers regularly to hear what they need and we keep them happy by feeding these requirements directly to the engineers to implement.”

First of all, we applaud you for going directly to the users with your product and taking back their requests into the design… but this is a slippery slope.

Although you may know your users and even have some working for you, how well are you capturing their needs? Are you asking the right questions? Are your users able to articulate what they need? You may have voluminous user feedback, support call logs, or error log reports on file, but have you put the user data into a framework that generates an actionable set of UI enhancements?

Equally important; when you have captured their feedback, how do you use it? Without a clear definition or roadmap for incorporating the user feedback, your product is at risk of losing competitive ground. When a company has to spend additional revenue in extensive training sessions, help documentation, call centers and product revisions, the margin of return on investment can take a massive beating.

Here are some activities to help you to incorporate user feedback into your agile development practice:

1) Give the feedback some context – What were users doing or attempting to do when they encountered the issue, and what are their roles? Usability specialists conduct a set of contextual inquiries to interview and observe users as they are performing various tasks in the context of their workplace to determine both system and non-system based activities, documents, and tools that are used to complete their tasks.

2) Quantify and qualify the user data – Where do you see common issues reaching a critical mass? Which are the exceptions and how do you prioritize them? What issues constitute a completely new set of features and possibly a new product?

3) Organize it – Once you have synthesized and prioritized the issues, determine their relationship not only to the system, but also to each other. Which comments are related and which ones are specific to a given task or feature?

The result is a set of researched usability issues that can be organized into enhancements prioritized by issue, prevalence, technical complexity, business, and user benefit.

Such a framework should be employed when embarking on a product definition or enhancement process. It allows parties from marketing, product management, and engineering to uncover the root of software design issues that challenge usability, and ultimately to gain a deeper understanding of their users. Product managers and engineers who gather and process user feedback assist their company by developing the right products and tools for their customers.

This post includes an excerpt from Limina’s white paper “Nine Ways to Improve Software Usability and Increase Market Share“.

Skipping this step leads to an iterative path of organically distorting the original design of the system and frankin-hacking patches and appendages to the product to the point where rebuilding from scratch is easier than overhauling the UI when your users start running to your competitors.

There are a great many development teams using agile methods, SCRUMing it out, getting the features out the door to see what sticks. In many ways, this is a helpful model to beat the first-to-market and innovation clocks, but if the net result is revisiting the feature again and again or playing “pass the trouble ticket” from developer to developer as the feature enhancement is punted to the next iterations for months… something isn’t working.

We are all for engineering driven product teams. In most cases, massive leaps in technical innovation are paved by developer teams and individuals unhindered by business and user requirements. But we’re talking about products in the market that have ROI, user adoption, marketability, competitiveness and other business considerations to name a few.

There’s something to be said for dealing with the cost up-front; for taking the time to build a sustainable product whether in its initial incarnation or when producing the next generation of its kind, because the hidden cost of maintenance, marketing and training can work against you in the long run.

Give us your thoughts and share your experiences with us and our readers!

There have been some recent crowd-sourcing business models making their way on the Usability Research and User Experience Design scene.  The crowd source value proposition is, “High Volume Results – Cheap” – with some important variables like: Quality, Usefulness, Relevance, Focus, Strategy, and more.

How do you make the right decision on whether or not to crowd-source UX research for your project/product and where will you get the most yield for your time, money and energy?  Here’s a quick review of Feedback Army and Loop 11 as well as some tips for your back pocket.

FeedbackArmy

What is it?

We first heard of Feedback Army back in January ’09.  This site is almost exactly what you think it might be.

1. You post up a URL and a list of questions/criteria to evaluate against (3-6 recommended)
2. You select the number of responders to your posting (3 tiers – 10 users for $10, 25 users for $23 and 50 users for $40)
3. Make a payment, wait and watch the reviews roll in.

What do you get?

Just what the site claims you get: “Simple, Cheap ‘Usability Testing’ for your Website.”

Depending on your questions and the range of responses you select, you have some variable control on the quality of the responses.  The site allows you to reject responses that are not of the quality you feel is deserving of $1.00 (or less depending on how many you selected).  The site has some tips on usability testing and some guidance on how best to use the service with a nice little endorsement for Steve Krug’s “Don’t Make Me Think“.  For what you pay, you get a fair shake.

As part of my research, I read over comments in the sample reviews, I submitted my own request for review, assessed the responses and I also nosed around some discussion forums where Feedback Army was the topic de jour.

Certainly, this service has it’s benefits (particularly on your bottom line) but there are the typical responses from folks disappointed by their own misguided expectations.  Look, you can’t use a service like this, then complain when you’re not handed a glossy analysis of your user findings broken down by persona & scenario that map 1 to 1 with your research goals.  It just won’t happen.  So when you get shorthand “unintelligent” lol-speak responses you really can’t complain.  Some users may/may not follow your posting to the letter and may spout off whatever comes to mind…  that’s the level of expectation you should have going in.

What you don’t get…

User Demographics & Targeted Personas – you’re dreaming.  The reviewer pool comes from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk – a crowd-sourcing work-in-progress.  While there are advantages here, there is limited control over who is actually doing the work.  The m-turk pool is 70% American… combine that with Feedback Army’s English only UI framework, and you’re limited to US domestic testing.

Quantitative Metrics – You won’t get time to completion and conversion rates,  and industry benchmarks.  If you outfit your test environment with Google Analytics, you can get at some success metrics around goals, popular content, and bounce rates, but with limited specificity on who’s feedback maps to which metrics.

Qualitative Metrics  – You can get if you’re explicit about ratings, but you’ll have to compile your own report if you want the pretty charts.

A Usability Report – this one is all you – if you played your cards right, you can get some decent raw feedback to compile into a report, but this requires a lot of planning.

How to make up the difference:

What are your research goals, what candidate  features/functions to test, what evaluation criteria, etc?  Ideally, you run a series of these to arrive at a more comprehensive view of your product’s usability, and compile the report in the end.  Hiring a consultant or using an internal dedicated resource to own this task will help ensure the value added direction setting and iteration planning for your product post feedback solicitation.

Loop 11

More recently we took a look at Loop 11.  Currently in private beta, Loop 11 is hooking up some usability testing bells and whistles.  I used ‘quotes’ around “usability testing” on my FeedbackArmy review because it’s really just a feedback machine.  Loop 11, however, has scratched the surface on tackling the tough stuff: Targeted Personas, Quantitative Metrics, Industry Benchmarks, and more.

What do will you get?

To be honest, I can’t tell you everything…  Loop 11′s closed beta is by invitation only.  Here’s what the site claims:

Create a user test. This is a lightweight form, but it takes more thought and detail than simply posting a URL.  A 3 step set up walks you through adding test details, tasks & questions and additional test options. The demo suggests you can organize tests into “projects” and save tests as templates.  (nice touch)

Invite test participants. This looks like a nice set of options: Get link to user test: presumably, you can send it out to a predetermined list of users (the ideal scenario), create pop-up invitation for your site: this gives you random users which may or may not be what you’re looking for (less ideal) or purchase from their panel users (needs investigation).  The site claims separation of test participants, making data roll up and drill down more interesting.

Everyone loves dashboards… so why not, a nice dashboard to give you high level data on average page views, avg. time per page, avg. task completion rate and average industry completion rates… That’s right, I said Industry Benchmarks.  Now that’s a rich claim – noting their closed beta partners, they’ve picked Amazon, Ikea, HSBC, Toyota…  these will be your benchmarks folks!  Not a bad competitive pool.  Well done Loop.

Here is a list of metrics you can get in the dashboard:

What you don’t might not get.

You already know that I can’t get a good handle on the truth here based on their current closed beta status.  But here’s a list of assumption you can make based on what they’ve exposed.  I found a posting by Ann Smarty who somehow got into their beta, she posted a light review here.

Validated qualitative metrics – you may get ratings, but you miss out on non-explicit reactions.  The classic,”users will say one thing but do another” is always in effect- you’ll get their feedback, but miss facial expressions, eye tracking, mouse hovering, heat mapping and general behavior surrounding their remarks.

That’s about it, it looks like you get a good set of data collection and analysis features – you still have to set up your test(s) properly.  This means well thought out targeted test goals and participant recruitment.

Online User Testing Service/Tool Limitations:

If you’ve found yourself staring down the barrel of some usability crowd-source projects you’re most likely dealing with tight time-frames and or budgets and you’ve ruled  out a lengthy and potentially costly full blown usability study.  What tips can you learn from user research professionals to make the most of your crowd-sourced efforts and build a design strategy from your study outputs?

1) You can’t meet everyone’s needs.  Take some time to look over the feedback and group them into “UI themes” or “issue categories”.  There will always be outliers – if your study was targeted and you knew the demographic weight of missing the mark on an outlier, then you can factor them in – or, if this outlier hit the exact note that all of the others missed – the note you have been attempting to hit…  then factor them in, but be careful not to upset the balance of maintaining a clear grasp of mass appeal.  You can alway run multiple targeted feedback sessions once you know what your issue categories are. Try your hand at feedback and observation analysis you may find affinity diagramming or mental modeling useful, but don’t forget to segment and simplify your feedback – “verb + noun = atomic task”.

2) User segmentation and personas.  Getting at the psychographics and demographics of your user takes a little extra time & thought and has very real user experience implications.  While no two users on any given system are the same, you can loosely characterize their behavior and relationship to information, objects and tasks into 3-6 types.  ex. Novice, Intermediate, Advanced, Specialist, etc.  The more comprehensive your view of your users going into a study, the more focused your test and test results can be.

3) Reconciliation – User requirements and business requirements don’t always map1:1 to each other, and the technical architecture may or may not support all of the requirements. Map out your requirements into a functionality matrix where you look at all of the system functions and features, making sure that you account for all business and user requirements (using excel helps you stay concise and color coded).  Rank each item by business benefit, user benefit and technical complexity (H/M/L).  Use the matrix to build an iteration plan based on your ranking.

4) Mapping study results to information and interaction design strategy.  You may have a head for this, and if you do, you’ve most likely covered your bases, but it never hurts to get an outside opinion.  Great design is rarely achieved without a great deal of planning.  Knowing where you are, where you’ve come from and where you’re going at all points of development can keep your tests and iteration plans focused and practical.  Understanding how to meet the needs of your users in rapid order with a long range view of feature extensibility will go a long way towards keeping your product on track.

Additional on-line usability testing tools:

Lightweight Usability Checklist

Remote Eye Tracking Service

Concept Feedback

Web Review Community

Remote Task Analysis

Remote Usability Testing

Application Testing

Other (unrelated) Product Crowd-Sourcing Sites:

Graphic Design

Automobile Design (just because it’s cool)

Feedback

Freelancing

Happy testing all.  Remember: “Test early & test often”.  Don’t be afraid to admit you need help, we’re pretty good at what we do.

-Jon Fukuda