|
The
merger of AOL/Time Warner/EMI makes a great deal of sense when you
consider the difficulty rivals will have in delivering a competitive
user experience on the web. The reason AOL has an advantage is simple,
they have the ability to control the whole product and produce a
coherent design. They have the desirable back end content from Time
Warner EMI, the distribution mechanism through the AOL portal and
the delivery mechanism with the Netscape browser. In short the ability
to deliver an end-to-end user experience. So far without an equivalent
competitor.
Why
should it matter that AOL has all this control? What advantage might
it give them? How might it affect the User Experience?
Firstly,
we must put good User Centered Design aside for a moment, and face
the reality that often the designer is asked to wrap an interface
skin on to a system. Before the web arrived, this would entail devising
a interface on a set of functions. Now this has morphed into a navigation
scheme on a collection of content.
Content
driven design on the web for both wired and wireless web sites presents
a much greater interface design problem than earlier function driven
design did for GUIs.
Web
Design vs GUI Design
There
are a number of differences that UI Designers first recognizes when
they make the switch to browser based interfaces. One of the main
differences is the amount of information or content involved. The
Web as a media device has been used to publish vast quantities of
information and allow searching, sifting, and selecting of data
in hitherto impossible quantities. In short, there is a lot more
content involved in web design. So
the degree of difficulty is greater!
As
a UI Designer comes to terms with this, there is the double whammy
that the environment for delivery of the interface is a lot less
rich in terms of functionality and available widgets, unless the
designer resorts to use of tools such as Flash or other plug-ins.
Compensated for in some part by the deeper richness of graphic design
and typography.
There
is another hidden difference. It's a process difference. With GUIs
the problem is usually contained within one single company. The
back end business logic or data was also being generated by the
same business. It was proprietary for the most part. The UI Designer
was working for a company which understood the data and how it was
used. They controlled it.
On
the web, this is seldom the case. Particularly with portals and
aggregation services, the content is often being delivered from
a large collection providers. Each provider might be a vertical
player who understands some business such as Weather, Stock Trading,
News. The UI Designer is working for the portal which is in business
to aggregate and deliver. It is a distribution function. So the
UI Designer probably isn't an expert on the Content and neither
are any of his/her colleagues. Nor do they control the content.
Quite rightly the content provider will control it. They are the
experts in the field whatever that may be e.g. weather.
So
why is this a problem?
Understanding
the audience
To
deliver the best user experience, you need to understand the users
- the audience for the content. Interaction Designers do this using
well established, tried and tested techniques for user and task
analysis. They create, devise or research, persona definitions for
different users. They determine the user's goals and the tasks which
need to be undertaken to achieve the goals. They determine the content
required to complete those tasks and deliver the goals. Finally
all of that knowledge is used to create what is often a procedurally
oriented design. Good user centered design has a tendency to add
value by identifying where functionality can be chained together
to form a solution.
With
a typical GUI application, the business or the technologists have
identified a set of functionality which must be provided to meet
basic business requirements. That functionality is provided from
a back end server system and a client front end must be added. Without
User Centered Design, you are simply grafting an interface on to
the function. The resultant system does not explicitly support user
tasks but does provide the necessary functionality. The user is
required to know which functions to use and in which order.
The
Interaction Design can add value to this by identifying the users
and devising an interface which better supports tasks and goals.
It's a higher layer of abstraction - a task layer on top of the
functional layer.
Now,
let us consider the problem for the designer of a wireless portal
aggregation service.
The
available functionality includes weather services, airline flight
services, traffic services and news. Each of these comes from a
separate provider, an expert in each field. They in turn are already
offering these services as standalone functionality through their
own web site. It already has an interface.
The
designer has a choice. Simply, take all the available content and
functionality and wrap an interface skin on to it and offer it as
is, [ broadly speaking, what is offered on most current portals
], or try to understand the users and deliver goal oriented, task
centered design. Choosing the second option will eventually deliver
a better experience but not without it's problems.
The
aggregator has a different audience
Sticking
with weather services as an example, let's briefly consider who
the originator of the content considers the audience? Typically,
the originator is a business (often government owned) which collects
weather data and makes reports and forecasts. These are delivered
to news agencies, airports, fishing fleets and the like. In short,
the content provider is probably only used to dealing with a professional
audience.
The
content tends to provide - "Just the Facts!". The interpretation
of the facts is left to audience. For example, if I want to know
whether it is safe to walk my dog, I need to know whether a thunderstorm
is likely in the next hour. Weather information rarely gives this
level of detail. In any case, answering the question would be left
to me. The service provides the functional information but the goal
oriented, tasked based inquiry is not supported.
Now
consider that you are in the business of delivering compelling content
to information appliance users over the internet.
A
user for example might be a frequent business flyer. They want to
know whether their flight is on time. They want to know what the
weather is like at the destination. They need answers to questions
like, "Should I pack an umbrella?","Do I need a winter
overcoat?". They need to know how to get to their hotel from
the airport. They need to know whether they will delayed in traffic.
The
user has a goal of getting to the destination, in a timely fashion
and suitably attired for the conditions. They don't know or care
about isobars, or precipitation patterns, or flight codes, air traffic
control slots and so forth.
These
users are a lay audience with other things on their minds. So the
designer has a problem. If the design is to cater for the audience,
delivering user centered design, then the content must change. It
must be suitable for the lay audience and not the technically savvy
professionals. The problem is that the designer doesn't work for
the content provider. Unless, of course, that designer is working
for a large conglomerate such as AOL Time Warner EMI which provides
much of the content such as news, music and entertainment, by itself.
Human
communication and control
In
order to deliver a coherent design offering the best possible user
experience, the designer needs to be able to communicate with the
owners of the content and needs to be able to control how that content
is provided and presented. The designer needs to have influence
over the back end.
Naturally,
this is possible in most cases. The content provider is in business
to make money. Naturally, they want to work with a aggregation service
which is providing a distribution network for them. The key is speed
and effect. When everything is contained within one corporate control,
the ability to communicate, control and affect change is bound to
be greater. In a world where time to market is as important as the
quality of the product, it is obvious that an end-to-end internet
service company has an advantage. When you control the delivery
device, the distribution mechanism and the content, then naturally
you have a time to market advantage because your people can communicate
faster, better and more effectively than your competitors who are
left behind negotiating legal agreements while you move your design
forward. You can also affect a more coherent design earlier offering
a superior user experience. As we move to a world where usage of
services will be the key driver for revenue and as a result design
and usability will be increasingly more important, it is obvious
to see where the advantage lies.
Summary
Big
end-to-end service providers like AOL Time Warner EMI have the opportunity
to use their corporate size to communicate faster and exact better
control over their designs, in comparison to competitors forming
loose business alliances. Consequently delivering better product
with a better user experience leading to higher usage and greater
revenues. In an internet world where one leading player can quickly
become a dominant force or even a virtual monopoly holder, you have
to predict that the company that gets it right will dominate the
market.
Delivering
good User Centered Design with goal oriented, task centric services,
aggregating content from across the internet is best achieved by
big players acting alone.
|
