I really enjoy attending User Experience events. This is one place where I can tell people that I am an Information Architect, without them looking at me and say: So I guess you design houses then?

Trust me, I get that quite a lot at other social gatherings, like birthday parties, weddings and high school reunions…

So, I was at this Los Angeles Designers Meet up recently and a young lady in her mid 20s asked me a question that I have not thought of in recent years.

Her: What would be THE one principle that you have stood by throughout the years in your line of work?”

(I deep thought about my past 10 years in the User Experience field and replied)

Me: Well, it has to be KISS Usability or Keep It Simple Stupid Usability.

(I went on and elaborate)

Me: In fact, it’s easy to make things difficult but it’s difficult to make things easy.

But the key when it comes to usability is to focus on just one thing.

I then shared an article that I’ve recently read, with her. It’s called “Choice Kills Usability” by John Rhodes and here are some key points from that article:

“One of the easiest ways to improve usability is by focusing on just one thing. When you present something to the user, be sure that it’s just one thing. All too often we try too hard to offer people several options.

The reason many people love Google.com is that it offers just one thing: Search. A single-minded focus has enormous implications. Users can clearly understand what Google is about and what it does. Even new users to Google are instantly put at ease because of the outlandish simplicity.

There are branding implications as well. When people think about search they think about Google and when they think about Google they think about search. This brand strength translates to billions of dollars of market capitalization…”

“…billion dollar companies down to gritty little sales pages can benefit from ultra focus. When you eliminate clutter and choices, usability invariably goes up. When there is a single purpose of a web page, product or service everyone wins.

Next time you’re thinking about giving your customers 100 choices, think about the effort that it takes to investigate each decision. Think about the cognitive effort required to sift through option after option. Look, if you “know” there is one best choice; eliminate the junk and focus, focus, focus.

Choice kills usability. Not always — But when you are in doubt about adding features, choices, and options, take the safe path.

Provide a clear vision. Be practical. Focus for usability. “

So, next time, when your customer wants the “About Us” link to be repeated on the header, footer and again on the infamous quick-links section, just because they said it is not prominent enough. Think again, try to recommend a solution that focus and make that “one link” more obvious and prominent.

The footer definitely has much greater use than just repeating what’s in the header and so is the quick-links section. I guess that may be a topic for my next chat up and a blog to follow.

I’d like to report on a weekend after-dinner conversation that reminded me how critical the structure of language actually is. Too often I write off those late school nights I spent with Foucault and Saussure as irrelevant to my day-to-day work as a marketing content developer - but no more!

This renewed passion for structuralism even promises to put myself in a more natural dialogue with my fellow computer scientists. Needless to say, I’m a sucker for intersections and interrelations, and I hope the paraphrased pseudo-transcript below serves to open up a new nexus or two for its readers! Note: names have been changed to protect those involved in the inevitable event that I’m misquoting them!

Christy: Did you hear that scientists proved the human brain is programmed to process language according to structural patterns (“cat” is either the sound made when someone says the word or when someone signs the word) and semantics (“cat” is a furry creature that says meow)?

Mike: They also located the specific areas of the brain where those functions occur, too. So fascinating! Before, it was believed that the capability to recognize structural patterns was developed over time but not innate to the human brain.

Mandy: So, you’re saying that structural patterns are necessary to a human’s experience of verbalized or sign language?

Christy & Mike: Yes!

Mandy: Wow. I wonder if I could use this to support an idea I had about punctuation and standardized usage rules affecting an individual’s experience of language – reading or hearing it.

Christy: I’ve always thought that punctuation and usage rules DETERMINE how one reads language – aloud or in one’s head from a page – so, I think that could work. What do you mean about “experience” though?

Mandy: Well, even though someone may not realize a comma is in the wrong place or that the word “your” is used incorrectly for the conjunction of “you” and “are” (which should be “you’re), I suspect – or would like to believe – that their brain recognizes the error to some degree and experiences the error on a level somewhere between subconscious and conscious. Like with html code, if the bracket is missing before “b>”, the output will not be the intended bolded text.

And, if this is true, then I also suspect that a company or product that defines itself with language rife with errors contributes to individuals’ experiences of that company or product – experiences that ultimately shape conscious belief or actions – being impacted by those errors or conflicted in some way at the very least.

Mike: I think it’s bigger than that, actually. I think usage and punctuation errors impact the explicit meaning, even if it’s not as blatant as the Oracle at Delphi’s story when the Oracle told its questioner, “You will go you will return not in the battle you will perish.” If you put the comma before “not,” the individual will live. If you put the comma after “not,” the individual will die in battle.

Mandy: Hmm. So even if the stakes aren’t as high as death, meaning is sacrificed when punctuation and standardized usage rules are ignored. Guess we’ve just provided job security for proofreaders everywhere.

Jake: Well, let’s just keep this between us until I sell all my Derrida books on eBay. Cool?

So I’m just finishing up one of the most fascinating books that was given to me by one of my colleagues, Amanda Vande Brake. The book is The Culture Code. Without going into hundreds of lil nuances and details, the basic summary is that the book takes a psychoanalysis rollercoaster and multi-layered adventure into how a consumer’s individual unique culture, personal experiences and life patterns define the way they respond to brands as well as to marketing in general.

I think the most fascinating portion of the book was in fact not the outcomes, but simply the process and journey that author, renowned cultural anthropologist Dr. Clotaire Rapaille, takes his test subjects through as he delves into how their own behaviors, thoughts and relationships with various test products (i.e. cars, ceral, wine, etc). Him and I share a common belief. Ignore what people “tell” you in a workshop, survey or focus group because more often then not they lie, are easily influenced or just don’t really remember or have an opinion on the information you are trying to get out of them. Instead, Dr. Rapaille says to focus instead on the common structure of stories that your test subjects reveal.

Read the rest of this entry »