We just found an awesome post from www.LukeW.com about how redesigning forms to read like conversational paragraphs can boost conversions up to 40%:
http://www.lukew.com/ff/entry.asp?1007
Can’t wait to give it a try.
Lukas Mathis has written a short but insightful piece on the idea that simple designs for icons and action related UI makes more sense. His conclusions also reminded me of some of the studies done on faces and body shape as it relates to attractiveness. The retention of juvenile characteristics or Neoteny suggests that the retaining the basic look or shape of the child or immature version has the outcome of making it more attractive to our visual brains.
A great example of this is the evolution of the Mickey Mouse character. In 1978, Stephen Jay Gould theorized that Walt Disney and his animators gradually discovered what it took evolutionary psychologists decades to prove: that baby-like features and proportions elicit an “automatic surge of disarming tenderness” in adults.
Simple UI or icons offer more inferred information as opposed to prescriptive. The simpler the icons the more likely we are to throw them into a general category instead of wondering which action or quality to ascribe to them. As Lukas Mathis points out, “People are confused by symbols if they have too many or too few details. They will recognize UI elements which are somewhere in the middle.”
Yesterday I watched Sherlock Holmes and loved it. The movie was true to Sir Conan Doyle’s dark and dirty London without all the typical Hollywood crap we’ve grown accustomed to. The witty dialogue between Holmes and Watson caught my attention from a designer’s point of view.
Two things that Holmes said that are extremely relevant to the art and science of design are “the devil is in the details” and “don’t find facts to back up your theories, find facts to construct your theories”. I’m paraphrasing of course but you get the idea. The first quote is obvious and doesn’t really need additional explanation but the second one is the cornerstone of successful design projects.
We are all guilty of creating theories that support our own biases. In our roles as strategic designers we hear these types of things all the time. There is nothing more damaging to good UI design than statements like “I feel like our clients would want this feature” or “I’ve heard that features like this are really popular”. When we hear these general and emotional responses or suggestions we ask where the data is to support that idea or ‘feeling’. Is the data from a respectable source? Where else have we seen this feature and how successful was it in achieving the site’s or app’s goals? Are their user experience tests or best practices that support that idea?
Love the data. It’s more rewarding than falling in love with your own ideas.
Great article on how good UI and UX design leverages the overall customer experience to offset marketing costs.
By focusing on the quality of design and user experience and improving it, marketing dollars can be spent much more efficiently and work to support a product that has a clear competitive edge through ease of use and quality of design. In addition, making the product easier to use can reduce the amount of effort and resources needed to support it, which can lower costs and increase your return on investment.
Here’s a little resource I wipped up for the Who Reps It project we’re currently designing at FTS. It’s a re-usable video tour page that runs on Vimeo.
For now it uses a sample video. Once the application is designed we’ll use a screencasting program (I prefer ScreenFlow) to create the videos. Vimeo will host the videos for us for free. Once the videos have been uploaded to vimeo all we need to do is copy and paste the embed code provided into the Video Tour page and we’re good to go.