Krug's approach to web design

The first time I heard about Steve Krug's internet design principles was quite recently in a Simon Whistler video about the history of YouTube: "YouTube did one thing that set them apart from all the others at every level, from Creator to viewer, they adhered to Steve Krug's famous design principle of 'Don't Make me Think'" (Today I Found Out, 2023, 14:21).

Hah. Who is this Steve Krug? I headed off to the library to find out.

It turns out that Steve Krug wrote a fairly seminal book on web design back in 2000 called "Don't Make Me Think", which was updated and re-released in 2014. I got a revised edition and had a scroll through.

The key piece of advice to designers is that "When you’re creating a site, your job is to get rid of the [user's] question[s]" before they even know they have questions (Krug, 2014, p. 13). To make sites so intuitive to use; buttons, links and directions so clickable that users do not stumble in navigating the site. Yes: intuitive usability is a KEY piece of good design. 

Further, it is noted that users "don’t like to puzzle over how to do things" (p. 15), and that a build up of distractions where we can't work out how we got to where we ended up will "erode our confidence in the site and the organization behind it" (p. 15). Ouch. 

This book is considered by many a seminal text in web user design (da Silva Leite, 2021), noting that elements which assist "the User Experience [are to] take advantage of conventions, create effective visual hierarchies, break the pages up into clearly defined areas, make it obvious what is clickable, eliminate distractions, format content to support scanning" (p. 14). None of this is rocket science, but it is surprising how often those cues are not clearly delivered to the user.

This book, while old, is still useful. Check it out.

Sam

References:

da Silva Leite, J. R. G. (2021). Advantages of Using User Experience Design Concepts in the Creation of E-Learning Courses. [Master's thesis, University of Lisbon]. https://repositorio.ul.pt/bitstream/10451/48201/1/ulfpie054300_tm.pdf

Krug, S. (2014). Don't Make Me Think: A common sense approach to web and mobile usability (Revised ed.). Pearson Education.

Today I Found Out. (2023, November 18). What was the First YouTube Video and How Did YouTube Start? [video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/7GC9v-EYcsQ

read more "Krug's approach to web design"

The difference between divergent and convergent thinking

Gosh: there is always something else to ponder. I was thinking about convergent and divergent thinking recently, and realised that I had never written a post on it.

So, as always, we should begin with definitions. Convergent thinking "is oriented toward deriving the single best (or correct) answer to a clearly defined question. It emphasizes speed, accuracy, logic, and the like and focuses on recognizing the familiar, reapplying set techniques, and accumulating information" (Copley, 2006, p. 391). Its opposite, divergent thinking, is where we come up with "multiple or alternative answers from available information. It requires making unexpected combinations, recognizing links among remote associates, transforming information into unexpected forms, and the like" (p. 391). What is really interesting is that solutions found from divergent thinking in answer "to the same question [...] may vary substantially from person to person but are of equal value. They may never have existed before and are often novel, unusual, or surprising." (p. 392).

So we can think of convergent thinking of being familiar, satisficing and effective answers, while divergent thinking yields novel, varied and unconventional answers. Depending on our roles and our personal habits and inclinations, we may be more practiced in one of these thinking types, but not the other (Copley, 2006; Guthrie, 2022). 

Both thinking patterns have value, both have limiters and delimiters (Guthrie, 2022). Copley provided an excellent table showing the patterns and processes (2006, p. 392):

Sometimes problems require a logical, familiar, optimised, safe and secure answer (Copley, 2006). At other times, when we face 'wicked' problems, we need an unconventional, wide-ranging, boundary-seeking range of options (Copley, 2006) which means as one answer gets knocked out, we have something else to shift to. These are fluid situations where one right answer is simply too limiting.

However, divergent thinking can mean we do not necessarily weight our results well, or that we prioritise our range of answers. We may get paralysed in choosing optimal answers. We need to have frameworks for evaluating those answers which we find. This is where convergent thinking models can help us (Guthrie, 2022).

Brainstorming is where we should be using divergent thinking (Buzan, 1988; Guthrie, 2022). We place no limits on our thinking. It is when we move to prioritisation and weightings that we shift into convergent thinking (Guthrie, 2022). 

Depending on our training and natural inclinations, we are likely to be better at one stage in the process over another. And usually, in corporates, we are better at convergent thinking. However, Guthrie (2022) suggests that can improve our divergent thinking by brainstorming ideas; by asking questions (of ourselves, particularly imagining 'what if' questions which might help us think more laterally about barriers; having a korero with others; or having a hui); by trying to connect all that we know in a mind map (Buzan, 1988); by doing something else to enable "the boys in the basement"  to create some connections while we aren't looking (King, 1998, p. 60).

Let's get better at walking both paths. 

Sam

References:

Buzan, T. (1988). Super-Creativity. St. Martin's Press.

Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 391-404. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1803_13

Guthrie, G. (January 19, 2022). Divergent vs. convergent thinking: how to find the right balance. Nu Lab. https://nulab.com/learn/strategy-and-planning/divergent-vs-convergent-thinking-how-to-find-the-right-balance

King, S. (1998). Bag of Bones. Scribner

read more "The difference between divergent and convergent thinking"

Design thinking

I have been thinking about design thinking. I tend to think about design thinking when I am using a piece of kit that is basically a frock on a pig. It might be a pretty frock, but it is still on a pig. That is when we wish that the companies which made the products we are using did more design thinking.

Design thinking is taking a strategic view to meeting consumer needs and desires, building lateral thinking and user-friendliness into the DNA of the project from its inception... which in turn "leads to dramatic new forms of value" (Brown, 2008, p. 86). Consider the iPhone when compared to the old Nokia bricks. The iPhone had design thinking built in. In its time, the iPhone delivered what customers didn't even know they needed. 

It helps, I think, to consider design thinking as a five step process to help us sort out problems where there are lots of unknowns. The five steps in the process are (Interaction Design Foundation, 2022):

1. Empathise: we need to understand what the problem is. We have to explore the problem broadly, and talk to a lot of people. We need to talk to users. We need to watch users do what they do. We need to find out what the REAL problem is (sometimes the users don't really know). The real problem is nearly always bigger, "more nuanced, or different" to what we assume at the outset (Linke, 2017).
2. Define: We try to analyse all that we have seen, and synthesise everything to define what the core problems are (Interaction Design Foundation, 2022). We effectively "define the question" (Mueller-Roterburg, 2020, p. 17). 
3. Ideate: Then we brainstorm. A lot. We need to include all the "wild and crazy ideas" (Linke, 2017), so we don't leave anything off the table. We get lateral on it; we look for different ways to solve the problem, to apply different thinking (Interaction Design Foundation, 2022).
4. Prototype: Now we experiment. We try lots of stuff and see what sticks, through trying inexpensive, scaled-down versions to investigate ideas. We "outline, design, model, or simulate them so that the potential customer understands your idea and can test it" (Mueller-Roterburg, 2020, p. 17).
5. Test: "design thinking is iterative: [t]eams often use the results to redefine one or more further problems. [We] return to previous stages to make further iterations, alterations and refinements – to find or rule out alternative solutions" (Interaction Design Foundation, 2022).  “We explore potential solutions through modeling and prototyping. We design, we build, we test, and repeat — this design iteration process is absolutely critical to effective design thinking” (Linke, 2017). We also need product testers who are good at breaking things so we can ensure that the result is just as robust as we would expect it to be. 

The steps are not necessarily linear. We are likely to need to take an iterative path, forward and backward, until we think we have it roughly right. Time after time. 

I hope that helps!

Sam

References:

Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84-92. Reprint R0806E.

Interaction Design Foundation. (2022). Design Thinking. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/design-thinking

Linke, R. (14 September 2017). Design thinking, explained. MIT Management. https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/design-thinking-explained 

Mueller-Roterburg, C. (2020). Design Thinking for Dummies. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

read more "Design thinking"