Re: [agile-usability] Re: Integrated Usability in Agile teams from the trenches :)
Hi, Matt! Welcome to the group.
I get the impression that you have misunderstood Robin's intent. I think his concerns about behaviors that some UX people have when confronted with Agile approaches is reasonable. Perhaps you could suppose that he values UX as much as you but still said the things he did? He's been participating here since 2004, so I figure he has to care about the UX.
My startup does consumer web stuff, and these days that lives and dies by the user experience. Two hours ago we finished some user tests on particular bits of the UI. One hour ago I was revising the UI based on the feedback. Shortly I'll release it into production, and Monday morning we'll do user tests on the new UI. To people from a traditional waterfall design background I'm sure that sounds insane, but in our view, it's far more effective at creating good experiences. My concern about Robin's approach isn't that it's too fast; it's that it's too slow.
On 02/10/2011 05:05 AM, mattspost77 wrote:
I have a number of strong reservations regarding this article, especially about the apparent lack of understanding for the UI and UX aspects of any design work within a project, when it is involved in the Agile process. To just pull out a few lines from the article: "Primarily it was a case of not wanting reality to hinder the pretty designs they were making in photoshop or Illustrator" I think this is a facetious statement by Robin Dymond who misses the point of the design and UI role. His stand point seems to be one that values code and speed of work over design without, it seems, understanding or appreciating the value that design has both for the customer and the business. A customer/user goes to a website and within 3 seconds makes up their mind that the site is trustworthy, of quality, aspirational or best in class because of the visual impression the site gives them. A website / 'Shop front' is reliant on design (UI and UX) to draw those feelings and emotions from a person, lead them to purchase and ultimately reassure them that what they are purchasing and who they are purchasing from is of the best quality. 'Product personality' influences and affects our perceptions. You get drawn into a shop on the high street or mall as what it's showing you is appealing and is stimulating your senses, the shop front / window is working hard selling you the product before you even enter the store, at the same time it has to convince and reassure you that it is better than the other shop selling near enough the same product just next door. It really isn't because you think it has amazing cash registers or the best 'chip and pin' machines.. Is it possible to imagine a car manufacturer designing an amazing engine and chassis, best in class even, only then to put a second rate body on it or the controls in an awkward place for the driver.. And then still expect people to buy it or aspire to own it just because it has an amazing engine and chassis? No probably not. So attention to detail and good design is by no means a hinderance to the process, its an important and integral part of the business, user experience and emotion / reassurance felt by the customer. Lets take the term 'pretty' and replace it with Aesthetics. Now it has nothing to do with 'pretty' - It has everything to do with aesthetics. Stephen P. Anderson wrote in the article "In Defense of Eye Candy" that "Aesthetics is not just about artistic merit of web buttons or other visual effects, but about how people respond to these elements. The question becomes: how do aesthetic design choices influence understanding and emotions, and how do understanding and emotions influence behaviour?" For the answer I would suggest you read his article: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/indefenseofeyecandy What we need to understand is that its not about something being 'pretty', but as user experience professionals, we must consider every stimulus that influences interactions, so it has everything to do with appeal, trust, quality, reassurance, aspiration and more. Without which, products wouldn't sell, people would choose an alternative 'shop front' and ultimately become loyal customers elsewhere. - I would like to add, that design isn't something that just 'happens', it takes time. It is something that has to be thought about, researched, understood, created and designed. None of these parts are done in an instant, they all take time to get right. - This is something that this article ignores. "UX people are the slowest and most resistant to adopting Agile principles and practices" - 'UX people' are probably the slowest and most resistant because they are constantly seeing and thinking about things from the customer / user perspective, and anything that is unproven in their eyes or introduced that is radically different, potentially lessening the quality of the UX, at the expense of getting something out quicker, will not be greeted with open arms, unless it is clear that it is at least as good as the process currently in place. "Don't embellish with new features UX thinks would be cool" - Robin Dymond's negative attitude towards UX improvements is really un-constructive. 'New features' are always going to be introduced, not because they are considered 'cool' but because they improve the experience for the user / customer! If new features weren't introduced, then websites would be stuck in the 1990's with left aligned, vertical sidebar navigation and no real thought about what is best for the customer / user. "An unstable UI design is usually driven by a lack of knowledge about the customer requirements and technical limitations." - Could the 'lack of knowledge about the customer requirements' be due to rushing through the process, without being able to thoroughly research or think about the UI (or even UX) from a customer perspective? Anyone (hopefully) who designs for the user would have the knowledge and understanding of what 'ingredients' are needed to create an easy to use UI, whilst giving it the look and feel that reassures the customer that the site is one of quality. My final thought about this article is this… "Designing a product is designing a relationship" "Designing a product is designing a relationship" - The product in this situation is our website – our "Shop front". That is what our customers and potential customers base their initial feelings / emotions on, feelings of trust, quality, reassurance. If they don't get those emotions then our 'audience' is harder to convince that we are the right business insurance place for them. I'm open and accepting to the Agile process, though my concern as both a web and UX designer is that if we're not careful we will end up with a 'patchwork quilt' of a website, which lacks consistency and has a poor customer / user experience. ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/agile-usability/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/agile-usability/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: email@example.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
- On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:08 PM, William Pietri <william@...> wrote:
> I get the impression that you have misunderstood Robin's intent. I think hisI would love to see an article on his concerns about behaviors that
> concerns about behaviors that some UX people have when confronted with
> Agile approaches is reasonable.
some developers have when confronted with UX.
- Hi Matt,
(Warning long post, no time to shorten)
I simply don't see a difference between the contributions of UI, dev,
test, db, etc. I could make persuasive arguments that would emphasize
the importance of any of these activities over the others. The reality
is we need all of these activities together to deliver excellent
products. The higher the level of understanding in the team of each
other's contributions the more effective the team. I am critiquing the
common misconception that it is only possible to do UI in one way,
before development. Its not true, and the result is a less effective
development process. The arguments you make are the same arguments
traditional QA managers make to keep testing at the end of the
project. They are the arguments Database developers use to justify for
building and optimizing the whole data model before developers start
on the server.
A high res UI in irise is about as useful as an L1 normed database
model. Both are local optimizations, and neither are useful to a
customer. Both contain major assumptions and do not consider the
constraints imposed by the operational context of the system. Worse,
because both appear "done" they cause problems managing stake holder
True story: A Bank I consulted on Agile hired a Boston Consulting guy
to help them with their web presence. He baffled many VPs with his
ideas on users, terms like user anthropology and ethnocentric bla bla
were bandied about. He convinced management that a UI team was needed
to create the user experience. I warned the scrummaster of the issues,
but she didn't have the clout and I was in another group. They used
Scrum and every 2 weeks they delivered screens in irise. They ran for
around 10 sprints before they declared that they were done. They
demoed their UI concept to many high level managers who then offered
lots of opinions on the colors that needed to be changed and things
that needed to be re-arranged.
4 months later the same managers were wondering why the new UI wasn't
up. They had been told that there was no backend, however they had
seen the UI.
The backend reality was many disparate systems for loans, savings,
credit cards, mortgage, investments, etc. The reality was that large
data warehouses needed to be created to isolate the web from the
backend complexity. The reality is syncing warehouses and systems
created constraints that were not accounted for in the UI. When the
first version of the site was released many of the stakeholders were
disappointed. The reality was a major feat had been accomplished,
however the stakeholders had approved a UI concept, and the first
release needed a different UI solution that took into account the
constraints of the bank's operations.
Was there some value in the 3 months of UI design? Sure. However that
value could have been captured with much less investment, much
quicker, and with a better result if the teams had been delivering
working tested software every sprint. stakeholders and VPs would have
had better insight and could have contributed more effectively if they
had seen the system evolve instead of seeing only a completed UI
On 2/12/11, Austin Govella <austin.govella@...> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:08 PM, William Pietri <william@...> wrote:
>> I get the impression that you have misunderstood Robin's intent. I think
>> concerns about behaviors that some UX people have when confronted with
>> Agile approaches is reasonable.
> I would love to see an article on his concerns about behaviors that
> some developers have when confronted with UX.
> Austin Govella
> User Experience
> Work: http://www.grafofini.com
> Blog: http://www.thinkingandmaking.com
Sent from my mobile device
Robin Dymond, CST
Managing Partner, Innovel, LLC.
Americas: (804) 239-4329
Europe: +32 489 674 366
On 02/16/2011 05:38 AM, Robin Dymond wrote:
I simply don't see a difference between the contributions of UI, dev, test, db, etc. I could make persuasive arguments that would emphasize the importance of any of these activities over the others. The reality is we need all of these activities together to deliver excellent products.
I used to have a collection of diagrams that showed the proper relationship between different specialties on a software project. They were made by all sorts of people.
As you would expect, the diagrams varied wildly. But they had one thing in common: the author's specialty was the most special. Maybe they were central. Maybe they came first. Maybe they got final approval. Maybe all of those! But their basic point was that if only they were in charge, everything would go swimmingly.
I say it's all bunk, and that whole projects require whole teams.