Designs That Change Lives: UX Boot Camp and Kiva

“The UX Boot Camp is a transformational experience, disguised as a training.”

- Lead UX Boot CampTeacher, Stefan Klocek

In each UX Boot Camp, participants dive headfirst into design. They are challenged by a real-world problem and in just four days produce clever design solutions tailored to their clients needs.

At the UX Boot Camp with Kiva, the designers’ mission was to envision web concepts that helped Kiva lenders decide which loans are best for them and facilitate the loan selection process. Currently, lenders can feel overwhelmed or discouraged by the number of borrowers and different types of loans. So Kiva was looking for ways to empower lenders and help them make decisions with their money.

Read More

A 15-minute investment in creativity

Despite the allure of the Newton’s apple story (Apple falls, and presto, change-o: an idea is born), creativity doesn’t fall from trees. On the contrary, the kind of creative thinking that drives true innovation takes nurturing. And by nurturing, I mean an honest and consistent commitment to exploration and out-of-the-box thinking in the form of time, resources, and space.

Because, here’s the thing: as product-design company Zurb aptly puts it, “People struggle to be creative when it’s not part of the culture.” Companies may tout “Innovation!” as their driving goal, but that proclamation means nothing if there isn’t infrastructure to support true creative thinking day-to-day.

Which leads me back to Zurb and a simple little practice called Friday 15. On Fridays, their team dedicates, you guessed it, 15 minutes, to some kind of creative exercise. They do this for team-building, fun, and to inspire a creative culture. Here’s a taste of the brain-ticklers they’ve explored together:

Read More

SXSWi recap

Gettin’ Bizzy with Pair Design

I went to SxSW Interactive to give a next-version talk about Pair Design with fellow Cooperista Suzy Thompson. It was much improved from the first draft, which was delivered in Amsterdam earlier this year at Interaction14, and the audience was a smart group of deeply engaged designers. (Shouts out to everyone who attended.)

Image by Senan Ryan

Read More

Designer’s Toolkit: A Primer On Using Video In Research

In our last post, we explored a variety of methods for capturing user research. Yet a question lingered—how can you effectively use video in your research without influencing the participants?

Here are some tips and tricks to minimize the impact of using video in research engagements. Keep in mind, these tips are focused on conducting research in North America—the rules of engagement will vary based on where you are around the world.

Read More

Cooper, Augmedix and Google Glass: No Real Estate? No Problem

Interaction designers today are really good at designing screens. Designing for Google Glass took us out of that comfort zone, and in some ways back to the basics. It reminded us of that truism that the raw building blocks of user experience are not screens—they are experiences.

Google Glass is in many ways not ready for prime time, but makes perfect sense for certain specialized applications, like what Augmedix has envisioned for doctors, who need to capture and reference key information while keeping their full attention on patients. Hands-free operation is one of the key strengths of today’s iteration of Glass. Medicine is particularly rich with hands-free mission critical use cases, and Augmedix is taking the first step down that path. Others are imagining similar applications for Glass, such as for first responders in emergency situations.

Read More

Designer’s Toolkit: A Primer On Capturing Research

You’ve been preparing for your research—recruiting, screening participants, devising schedules, testing discussion guides—and now you are deciding the best way to capture your research. But how? If you’re busy scribbling down notes, you might miss a sound byte. If you film the interview, you might unknowingly influence the conversation. These are all serious considerations. Properly capturing and documenting each research encounter prevents spending time and money on data that sits solely in the memory of the researcher.

How you choose to conduct and capture your research will greatly impact your outcomes, and ultimately your client outcomes. I’m going to highlight a variety of research capturing tools, and then we’ll have a future post about how to effectively videotape research. Both the type of research you’re conducting and its purpose will help you decide which capture method is best.

Before we begin, I wouldn’t recommend going into research alone—you will struggle to document while maintaining a conversation. A good structure is to have a moderator and a note taker, that way one practitioner can focus on conversing with the participant, while the other focuses on capturing what is occurring.

Read More

What you’ll like for dinner

Or: How persuasive design saved my lunch

While I was on route to Amsterdam for IXDA14, something struck me about the way the dinner options were presented to passengers. Here’s what was happening. The flight attendant delivered the menu in the same way to each row:

“Would you like barbeque chicken, beef strip, or vegetarian?”

I’ve been a vegetarian for twenty years now, and I’m a little sensitive to these moments. At first, my identity hackles were raised. “Hey!” I thought, “Why wouldn’t it be ‘Chicken, beef, and spicy red-beans-and-rice?’ We eat food, not a category of food! Those options should be presented as equals because we’re equals…Blah blah blah…ramble ramble…”

Fortunately, as is my habit, I caught myself mid rant, and tried to consider what was good about it. And sure enough, on reflection it’s the exact right way to present these options. Cooper’s been paying more attention to persuasive design of late, so let me explain, because that’s exactly what’s going on. The flight attendants are using choice architecture to keep vegetarians fed.

You see, one of the problems that vegetarians encounter when eating buffet-style with omnivores is that when there is a veggie option present, if it’s too good, there’s a risk that the omnivores will eat all the veggie stuff before we get to the front of the line, leaving us poor suckers with empty plates and sad-trombone bellies.

If the attendant presented “chicken, beef, and spicy red-beans-and-rice,” that’s exactly what’s at risk. An omnivore hearing that might think, “Hey, I’m a huge fan of spicy red beans and rice! Cajun spice is awesome. Bam! Let’s kick it up a notch!”

But when hearing a menu consisting of two easy-to-visualize options and the category of “vegetarian,” omnivores are more likely to be turned off by that third option. “Vegetarian? Screw that. I’m not a vegetarian. I like my meat heaping and with a side of meat. Meat me up, attendant, with the finest, meatiest meatings you have!” They’re less likely to ask after the actual contents of the vegetarian option, as they’re busy thinking about whether they’d like chicken or beef.

Meanwhile the vegetarians (even if their delicate identities are a bit bruised) are relieved when they hear that their needs have been considered. The unlucky ones in the very back of the plane (who failed to arrange a special meal in advance) might even get to eat.

descriptive option categorical option
omnivores Might choose :) Less likely to choose, still :)
vegetarians Less to eat :( More to eat :)

It’s not foolproof, of course, but I’ll bet if we could do a plane-by-plane comparison of “vegetarian” vs. “red beans and rice”, the categorical option would result in much more of everyone being happy. And that’s one of the powers of well-done choice architecture.

Designs that change lives

The UX Boot Camp: Kiva

Kick off your spring at the Cooper studio with our upcoming UX Boot Camp with Kiva, held March 11-14, in San Francisco, CA. This deep-dive promises to be one of our most inspiring, as designers, developers and project managers work together to support Kiva’s mission to eliminate poverty worldwide by connecting people through microloans.

Sound like a high bar? It is. Wait until you hear your mission.

Read More

Interaction14 – Is it Science, Art or something else?

While Friday’s talks seem to be quite level-headed compared Thursday’s design extravaganza, they weren’t any less provocative. Take a look at some of Friday‘s highlights (or sneak ahead to Saturday)

The De-Intellectualization of Design

Dan Rosenberg

Sketchnote by @ChrisNoessel

The De-Intellectualization of Design Big Idea:

Daniel Rosenberg, one of the old guard of Human-Computer Interaction, bemoaned the loss of a computer-science heavy approach to interaction design. He then shared his three-part antidote: Industry certification, employing Chief Design Officers, and better design education (read: computer and cognitive-science based). Guess which one of these was the audience’s “favorite”?

Hint:

Full description of The De-Intellectualization of Design here.

An excellent counterpoint to Dan’s observation was Irene Au’s early-morning mindfulness talk.

Read More

1 2 3 4 5 56