Category: Home

What is Design Thinking?

Design Thinking is a process that allows not only designers, but all different types of innovators and creatives, to solve problems that affect our everyday lives. The world’s best thinkers and innovators use Design Thinking every day. Brands like Apple, Google and Samsung have modernized their approaches to creating by introducing the Design Thinking process, and universities like Stanford, Harvard and MIT are teaching their students about it (Dam & Siang, 2020). 

“Design thinking is an iterative process in which we seek to understand the user, challenge assumptions, and redefine problems.” -Dam & Siang, 2020. 

The Design Thinking process includes five stages – empathize, define, ideate, prototype and test (Dam & Siang, 2020). 

After researching more about Design Thinking, I found out that companies and businesses that I have interacted with before were created through the Design Thinking process. Simple ideas have turned into insanely profitable companies because the people involved trust the process and put energy into creating great products.

Uber is an example of a company that not only was born because of Design Thinking, but also thrived and evolved because of it. Features that popped up after the company’s inception included cashless payments and ratings for drivers and riders (Upadhyay, 2020).

Design Thinking Comes to Life 

I recently ordered a pair of shoes online, and I received them about a week later. The shoes came in a cardboard box that was inside another cardboard box. I thought to myself, “I wish they [the shoe company] just sent the shoes without the box. It’s wasteful and unnecessary.”

And then BAM! I watched this video from Puma, and I was floored that a shoe company had already thought of this problem and attacked it with the Design Thinking process. Puma created the “Clever Little Bag” that is used in all of their retail stores and dramatically decreased their footprint. 

Pump partnered with the fuseproject and created a solution to a global packaging issue. The two companies began the Design Thinking process by diving into the process of how the original packaging was made, transported, handled and delivered. Diagrams, pictures interviews helped Puma and the fuseproject view the supply chain that goes from the manufacturing steps all the way to the customers. Improvements were made after viewing which areas needed the most help (fuseproject). 

After completing the first three phases of the Design Thinking process (Emathise, Define and Ideate), Puma and the fuseproject moved onto actually creating the prototype. In the end, Puma saved over 8,500 tons of paper, 20 million Mega joules of electricity, 1 million liters of fuel oil and 1 million liters of water every year when the Clever Little Bag was rolled out (fuseproject). 

Puma’s design of the Clever Little Bag is just one of the numerous examples of Design Thinking and its unimaginable impact. By starting with a simple idea, innovators can jumpstart into the Design Thinking process and end with a product or idea that helps people. 

Another example of Design Thinking in a real-life scenario is with the successful start-up turned billion-dollar travel business, Airbnb. Gebbia and Paul Graham, the co-founders, realized their website was not aesthetically pleasing the photos were terrible. After some experimentation, risks and outside-of-the-box thinking, Gebbia and Graham nearly doubled their revenue (Brown, 2020). 

Examples of Design Thinking are everywhere, which shows how relevant this process is, and how it can take a simple idea and transform it into a successful business, operation or product. In addition, Design Thinking and social media strategies can go hand-in-hand. In order for an idea to take off, the process, execution and communication of the idea must by in sync. 

In conclusion, one of the major parts of the Design Thinking process is empathy and how humans react to and tell stories. Telling stories help to inspire, evoke change and bring new solutions to tired ideas and situations. Stories are about humans, and every human has their own story. Design Thinking helps share those stories and create better ones to share. 

References

Brown, C. (14 April 2020). Five game-changing examples of design thinking and what we can learn from them. Career Foundry. https://careerfoundry.com/en/blog/ux-design/design-thinking-examples/#airbnb

Dam, R.F. & Siang, T.U. (August 2020). What is design thinking and why is it so popular? Interaction Design Foundation. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/what-is-design-thinking-and-why-is-it-so-popular

Fuseproject. (2010). Puma Clever Little Bag. https://www.fuseproject.com/work/puma-clever-little-bag

Upadhyay, I. (13 Aug. 2020). 10 great design thinking examples you can use to seek inspiration. Jigsaw Academy. https://www.jigsawacademy.com/blogs/design-thinking/design-thinking-examples/

The Yale School of Art is a graduate-level school within Yale University that offers two-year Master of Fine Arts degrees in Graphic Design, Painting/Printmaking, Photography and Sculpture. Undergraduate students can take course at the Yale School of Art. The home website for the Yale School of Art is located here. The website serves as a landing page for people interested in applying to the school, looking for contact information, searching for public events or news and viewing students’ art work. 

The researcher conducted multiple experiments on the user experience of the Yale School of Art and how it can be changed and improved. The following is a brief blogpost about the findings, research and methodology surrounding a usability study on the Yale School of Art website. 

The Problem:

The Yale School of Art’s website serves as the primary landing page for future and current students looking to pursue a Masters of Fine Arts Degree at Yale. The website works as a wiki page – all members of the School of Art community can edit, add new information and contribute to existing content. 

At first glance, the website’s homepage is cluttered and overwhelming. This website’s overall look and aesthetic is messy and dysfunctional. As one of the premier art schools in the country, the website should be easier to navigate and read. In addition, the attractiveness and appeal of the website is lacking. It is difficult to read with various fonts, colors and shapes intertwining in disconnected patterns. However, it is very unique in that all members of the Yale School of Art community have access to share their work or news on the site. There is not another top art school in the country that formats their website in this fashion.

Methodology:

The researcher used a variety of methods to determine usability issues from the Yale School of Art website.  The results show the researcher’s findings and the recommendations assigned to the website’s redesign. Personas were created to summarize the primary users and how those users interact with the website. Surveys, interviews and usability sessions were also conducted to analyze the participants’ thoughts and actions taken while using the website. A heuristic evaluation was also conducted to identify more usability problems. 

Results:

The different methods used to analyze the Yale School of Art’s usability proved to be helpful in determining the user experience errors within the Yale School of Art’s website design. On the basis of personas, the researcher used the descriptions and life examples to determine what usability errors might occur for the average user. 

A competitive analysis was created to examine the differences of website design between other top art school websites around the country. The Yale School of Art’s website is very unique in that a wiki design is used and the public/Yale community is able to edit the webpages. This leads to a very distracting and overwhelming design, as compared to other schools around the country. The researcher could also determine that Yale could be using this type of website design to stand out from the crowd and competition. 

On the basis of interviews, the researcher was able to create a 20-question interview for potential usability testing subjects. These subjects would help answer the research question for the Yale School of Art:

How can the Yale School of Art’s website’s design be restructured to more effectively fit the needs of the students, staff, art community and alums while maintaining the creative freedom from the wiki page setup?

The survey would help the researcher understand how users are scrolling through the Yale School of Art website and what their thoughts are as they do. A survey helps to categorize and identify trends in answers from the participants. Open-ended and multiple-choice questions were used to determine trends in the participants’ answers and concerns. 

On the basis of card sorting, the research was able to analyze participants thoughts on the website design, specifically the menus and the navigation. Card sorting helps to organize some of the consistencies that participants see when it comes to where a navigation link should change or stay the same. Three participants were used in this part of the usability study; all three participants were able to organize the menus and sub-menus successfully. This shows how the website’s navigation is not necessarily the problem. The heuristic evaluation and usability test will show how the design and aesthetic of the website need more work than the navigation, which was discovered through card sorting. 

The heuristic evaluation was conducted by a colleague from outside of the research group. The evaluator found that the layout is inconsistent and that the background changes are distracting from the body content. The Yale School of Art website is text-heavy, with an absence of icons, which the evaluator noted. The evaluator also encouraged a standardization process for the website to ensure more consistency. 

The final methodology used to study the user experience of the Yale School of Art’s website was a usability test. This type of methodology was very effective in helping the researcher discover how users interact and react to the Yale School of Art website design. Three participants were used in the test; the three participants completed all of the tasks given to them with little difficulty. Most of the reactions to the website were verbal judgments on the design and layout. Page length, color, design, text and order of navigation were the main focus points for all three participants. 

After the conclusion of the different usability tests, the research complied the recommended design changes after analyzing the problem areas. The problem areas included the artistic backgrounds, length of pages, dramatic use of color, size and font of text, the information on the “About the School” page and the editor option. Three of these problem areas are cosmetic issues surrounding the design of the pages. The other three are related to more of the navigation and page set-up. 

The researcher has five key recommendations for the site redesign: 

Don’t Change What Works – The researcher discovered the information participants were looking for was fairly easy to find. All of the tasks were completed despite the loud design. 

Take Away Quick Links Box – On the home page, there is a yellow box with a drop-down menu. In the menu, there are links that are very simple to the main menu links. There really is no reason to have this Quick Links box if the links are basically the same as the main menu.

Keep the Art, Add the Organization – The researcher understands the artistic and unique value that this website exemplifies. However, the student art/design of the website is overwhelming. The participants in this study did not really see the value in the busy backgrounds and seemed to be more distracted by them.

Less Text, More Photos – This website is very text heavy. There is a lot to read and decipher. By changing the amount of text and how it is laid out, there will be a better flow to the website. In addition, having more photos of art would help showcase the students’ work. 

Add More Branding – If there wasn’t a title at the top of the home page, most users would have a hard time figuring out which graduate school this website was for. Yale University is not represented well on this website. From colors to logos, there really isn’t any footprint of Yale at all.

In conclusion, the Yale School of Art website is very unique, and for the most part, it probably wants to stay that way. The design of the website, however, can cause some distraction. The researcher recommends some tidying and organizing to bring everything together and on brand, while keeping the uniqueness of the website apparent. 

The Wizard of Oz technique is a user experience research method that allows technology to be examined by using a human to analyze and use the system with another human watching the reactions. This is a technique used often to test technological concepts before they are distributed. 

The method involves a researcher acting as the “wizard”, who sits in a different room and monitors what the user is experiencing. The wizard stimulates what would happen to the system’s responses in real-time. 

The Wizard of Oz methodology can gather information about the user’s interaction and find out if there are problems people will have with the device, website or technique. In addition, this technique can allow researchers to investigate their products based on how well the product shows users how it can be used. 

J.F. Kelley created the Wizard of Oz technique and explains that “[it is used] to describe a testing or iterative design methodology wherein an experimenter simulates the behavior of a theoretical computer application” (Wizard of Oz, 2012).

Usability Book of Knowledge explains that there are many advantages and disadvantages to the Wizard of Oz method. The technique provides rapid iterations, allows early design critiques and provides insights into users’ actions. In regards to difficulties with the Wizard of Oz method, the “wizard” needs to have significant training in order to work with the users and respond to them in credible ways. 

Kelley introduced the Wizard of Oz method in 1984 to test the Human-Computer Interaction discipline. He was far beyond his time by allowing researchers the opportunity to test products and collect data while bypassing the development time and costs (Welk, 2018). 

In 2017, the Willowtree conducted a study about a mobile app. The research team wanted to know if the mobile app concept would effectively increase engagement with a physical wellness product. The product designer created a few concepts of prototypes of the app the research team was looking to create. They discovered that the group that received the information from the prototype app were most likely to use it in real life. The users were more familiar with the app after participating in the study (Welk, 2018).

The tools needed to complete the Wizard of Oz method include participants, a “wizard”, the necessary images, videos, prototypes, programs and elements needed to test your product.  

This method can be complicated, but if it administered correctly, the results can be very beneficial for the researchers. The Wizard of Oz method is revealing in that it will provide researchers with information about early concept testing and exploration of user preferences (Geison, 2019). 

This method would be difficult to pull off for a study about the Yale School or Art website, in that you would need someone who knew the website well. The Yale School of Art website, however, is set up as a wiki page. Many people are able to see and edit the back-end of the website. 

References 

Welk, A. (2018, July 11). How to test a feature you haven’t built yet. Willowtree. https://willowtreeapps.com/ideas/sleight-of-hand-user-testing-with-the-wizard-of-oz-method

Geison, C. (2019, Aug. 20). What in the UX is “Wizard of Oz Testing”? https://www.answerlab.com/insights/wizard-of-oz-testing

Wizard of Oz. Usability testing tools. https://www.usabilitest.com/usabilitynet/tools-wizard

Wizard of Oz. Usability of Knowledge. https://www.usabilitybok.org/wizard-of-oz

Navigating a website is one of the most important parts of a user’s success and willingness to return to the website. If a user cannot find the answer to their question or where something is on the website, the user’s task at hand fails. In addition to the ease of navigation, the first impression of the website is also very important. According to Jeff Sauro of MeasuringU, when a user’s first click leads them to the page that will eventually lead them to their answer, 87 percent of users find what they are looking for. When a user clicks on the wrong path, however, they will only succeed 46 percent of the time. 

Navigation and an ease of clicking is a key part of a successful website design. Measuring and testing a first click path with the first click test is a great way to examine a website’s navigation paths. The first click test is a research method used to examine the usability of a website and how easy or difficult it is to complete a task (UsabilityHub). 

To conduct a first click test (Sauro, 2011):

1. Create a set of scenarios for user to experiment with – The goal for the experiment user should be to solve a problem or answer a question. 
2. Make sure to note all of the correct ways the user could solve the problem (multiple paths and click points)
3. Track the clicks – use software like MUIQ or Chalkmark or track the clicks by hand
4. Time how long it takes for a user to solve the problem or answer the question – if it takes a user a long time to find the answer that can be evidence for navigation errors.
5. Use a seven-point scale and ask the experiment users to note how confident they were that they answered the question or found the answer
6. Use the same seven-point scale to ask the experiment users if they thought it was difficult to find the answer – this can be an opportunity for feedback on things that could change within the navigation of the website. 
7. Have the users try the same experiment on the new design of the website to see if it is easier or harder 

For a first click test, the tools needed would be a stopwatch and note taking tools (pencil/paper) if a click-tracking software is not used. In addition, the researcher would need to provide a few questions or problems for the experiment users to solve. 

This photo is an example of a heat map from Chalkmark that shows researchers where users click the most on a website’s homepage (Chalkmark & User Interviews).

Web analytics allow you to see the links that users clicked, but the reason why they clicked those links is not known. This is why the first click test is a great research method for website navigation. 

In 2006, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) made some updates to its website (CDC.gov). Bob Bailey and Cari Wolfson conducted the FirstClick usability test and analyzed the factors that increased or decreased a user’s success level on a task. Their research would go on to be one of the most influential studies for website navigation and usability. 

Bailey and Wolfson discovered a correlation between a user’s first click and the success in the final task (Bailey, 2013). They also found that when users had trouble deciding their first click, the success of the task was not there as often. Bailey and Wolfson had users complete over 130 scenarios in a one-hour testing period because tasks usually took less than 30 seconds to complete.

Another example of a first click test could be asking users to navigate Yelp’s website to complete a task. 

In this example, users could complete the task by using the search bar or clicking in the menu. 

According to Optimal Workshop, 87 percent of users clicked in the menu bar and 13 percent clicked in the search bar first. 

In order to have an informative first click test, the researcher must select the webpages they want to analyze, establish the goals and write the tasks. Having quality participants is also important as they will give you valuable feedback. It is also important to select users who represent the website’s normal users. 

The first click test will allow a research to determine if there are navigation errors or improvement that could be made on the website to enhance a user’s experience. 

In conclusion, the first click test allows researchers to see users in real time attempting a task and how a website’s design can influence the ability to complete the given task. With many factors that can have an impact on a user’s ability to completing a task, it is important to use the information from a first click test to help make a user’s experience better. 

References 

An introduction to first click test. UsabilityHub. https://usabilityhub.com/guides/first-click-testing

Bailey, B. (2013, Oct. 8). FirstClick usability testing. Web Usability. http://webusability.com/firstclick-usability-testing/

Sauro, J. (2011 Oct. 19). Getting the first click right. MeasuringU. https://measuringu.com/first-click/

First click testing. User Interviews. https://www.userinterviews.com/ux-research-field-guide-chapter/first-click-testing

First click testing 101. Optimal Workshop. https://www.optimalworkshop.com/learn/101s/first-click-testing/

Design thinking. 

What does this mean? We see the world around us and how it is built and created. We see how things have existed. Innovation has led to blending the two ideas of how things can be improved and how things have existed before. 

Design thinking ideology is the idea that a hands-on approach to solving a problem can lead to innovation, which then leads to differentiation and a separation between competitors. Design thinking follows a framework that consists of three interconnected parts – understand, explore and materialize. From there, you can break down the framework even more to six parts – empathizing, defining, ideate, prototype, test and implement (Gibbons, 2016). 

“Design thinking isn’t one thing,” Neil Stevenson, the executive portfolio director at IDEO Chicago said. “but a bundle of mindsets and philosophies all wrapped up in one term, which obviously has the potential to lead ambiguity and misunderstanding (Lahey, 2017).”

Design-thinking philosophies require a certain type of thinking from the designer; ego and personal ideologies must be pushed aside. In order to be successful, designers must put the users’ rational and emotional needs first (Lahey, 2017).  

For example, when Amazon first started, it was primarily a book distribution company. People were able to buy and sell books. But now, as we have seen over the last 10 years or so, Amazon has transformed into a distribution giant that basically sells everything. The company saw a need from customers, and adapted their company and its navigation. People enjoy shopping online and receiving their items quickly and easily. 

This is where User Experience (UX) comes in. Before this year, I did not know what UX was, but now I realize there is a need for people who help users have a better experience when navigating technology or trying to use a product or service, which is what UX is all about! When thinking about UX, it is important to understand that there is balance between understanding the differences in usability and user experience. Usability is more concrete and objectively product-based, whereas user experience is more subjective and based on the ideas of what humans need (Baxter, Courage & Caine, 2015).

There are numerous jobs that are involved in the entire UX process. From a usability specialist to a creative director, many people come together to have a successful UX for consumers. 

Mental Models

When thinking about UX, it is also important to understand what influences our mental models. Mental models are the pictures we see inside of our heads that represent how something works or functions based on our own past experiences. Mental models influence how we solve problems and approach situations (Weinschenk, 2011). 

In interface design, mental models refer to how people imagine the world, a device or a process. There are many examples of when people use their mental models incorrectly. For example, when someone presses a button to call the elevator, they will occasionally press it again thinking it will come faster. This is called the “more is more” philosophy (Rogers, Sharp, Preece, 2004). 

“It is believed that the more times you press the button the more likely it will result in the desired effect,” (Rogers, Sharp & Preece, 2004). 

Rogers, Sharp and Preece describe the “more is more” philosophy is interesting to think about. Naturally, as humans, we ideally understand that the more we practice something, the better we will be. But, in the sense related to the idea that doing something more will bring the result you want, the notion is not correct. When you think about it, it is all a little backwards. We are trained as humans to do things over and over, so when something does not go how we plan, we result back to what we know. 

Understand Your Users

When I am looking to buy a new product, piece of clothing or furniture, I always like to read the comments and reviews. This section of a website is filled with valuable information for not only the people buying products, but also the creator. This is why it is important to know your products and use them yourself. If a customer has a complaint, and you do not know what the customer is referring to, this can create UX issues (Baxter, Courage & Caine, 2015). 

User-Centered Design | User Requirements vs Business Requirements 

The Satisfy the Cat video (here) showed great examples of how UX designers and creators must leave out their likes and dislikes to create the best experience for their client/consumer. In the video, the narrator explains that he as a human like chocolate and strawberries, but the cat does not. This is a simple example of showing how a UX designer cannot use their own likes and dislikes to influence the process of creating user-centered final product. 

Generally, the user’s requirements are going to be a little different from the business’ requirements. But, in the end, both parties will have the similar goals. The user hopes to have an enjoyable experience and when that happens, the business will be able to sell the product and have a consistent customer. 

References

Baxter, K., Courage, C., & Caine, K. (2015). Understanding your users: A practical guide to user research methods. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. July 2015.  

Gibbons, S. (2016, July 31). Design thinking 101. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/design-thinking/

Lahey, J. (2017, Jan. 4). How design thinking became a buzzword at school. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/01/how-design-thinking-became-a-buzzword-at-school/512150/

Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Preece, J. (2004). Interaction design. 

Weinschenk, S. (2011, Oct. 8). The secret to designing an intuitive UX match the mental model to the conceptual model. UX Magazine. https://uxmag.com/articles/the-secret-to-designing-an-intuitive-user-experience