|
|
I've
been reading "The
Tipping Point" by Malcolm Gladwell. A couple of other
commentators on UI and Web Design have already recommended
this book, Peter Merholz
and Patrick Lynch.
However, this is not a book review. Merholz concluded in his
review at ePinions that Gladwell's case for a universal formula
for achieving success by the sudden viral spread of an idea
or fashion or a behavioral change or an attitude or belief,
was unproved. Merholz' point, that Gladwell through a series
of anecdotes and evidence from studies in behavioral psychology,
fails to establish the general rules, the abstract patterns
which can be universally applied, is certainly strong. However,
there was one story in this fascinating little book from which
we can learn a great deal about software, website and information
appliance design. The story of "Sesame Street" versus
"Blue's Clues"!
|
The
Tipping Point is the point at which something mundane suddenly
becomes popular or hugely successful, or where something controlled
suddenly breaks out and becomes uncontrolled. There are three key
motivators behind Gladwell's Tipping Point: The Law of the Few;
The Stickiness Factor; and The Power of Context. The Law of the
Few states that to spread an epidemic you only have to infect
or affect a few people. Those people have one of 3 key traits. They
are Connectors, Mavens or Salesmen. The Power of Context
states that behavior is very environmentally affected and that behavior
will change in different environments and indeed the effect of The
Law of the Few or The Stickiness Factor may be dissipated
if the environmental conditions are wrong. However, it is The
Stickiness Factor and one of the anecdotes given to back it
up which are most interesting for Interaction Design.
The
Stickiness Factor
Gladwell
uses the term, "the stickiness factor" to imply that something
is memorable. It has the ability to make itself stick in the long
term memory of people. This is important because humans have developed
the ability to filter out a lot of detail, to reduce the complexity
of everyday life down for storage in their brains. To avoid being
filtered something must exhibit The Stickiness Factor.
Stickiness
is also a term which is widely used in the new world of web business
to imply that a business model and/or a site design has the ability
to bring people back, again and again. It is not just memorable
but somehow "locks" them in or has some addictive quality
that keeps them coming back.
To
illustrate The Stickiness Factor, Gladwell chose to use an
example from American children's TV making. First with the example
of "Sesame Street" and then later an improvement upon
it, "Blue's Clues". The later show is considered an improvement
because its audience was less likely to drop out during a show and
repeat viewers were even higher than the much more established "Sesame
Street". Gladwell's argument is that the tipping point
for "Blue's Clues" was its superior stickiness factor.
What I think he fails to establish, is that the improved ratings
for the show were created through some genius spark of memorability
or simply through improved understanding of how to make children's
TV and adherence to a process which led to closer to perfect results.
He does, however, prove that "little things can make a big
difference" as the subtitle of the book claims. In the case
of "Blue's Clues", the little thing was pilot and storyboard
testing with real children. In essence, the producers of "Blue's
Clues" were usability testing their shows then modifying the
scripts to fix problems found in testing. For the Interaction Designer
or Usability Engineer reading this, that ought to sound familiar.
But first let's look at what, Gladwell claims, made "Sesame
Street" sticky.
Cognitive
Friction is a turn off
Most
good user interface design work often comes from counterintuitive
propositions for a design. It turns out that one of the key factors
in the success of "Sesame Street" was also a counterintuitive
proposition which went against the conventional thinking of the
times. In the 1960s, it was believed that TV was addictive and that
children simply tuned in and zoned out. As long as there was attention
grabbing action on the screen, they would watch. As soon as something
became slow and boring, they would tune out or change channel.
Sesame
Street was designed as a series of short sketches. There was a relatively
fast pace to the shows and the characters were designed to be attractive
and interesting to the children watching. The interest and addictiveness
was thought to come from the characters and the pace of sketches
in the shows.
Two
researchers in psychology studied how kids watched early "Sesame
Street" shows and discovered something unexpected - they didn't
simply watch from start to finish but constantly switched attention
from the screen to whatever was going on around them. They weren't
simply mindless zombies watching the screen. The breakthrough came
when they realized that,
"Kids
don't watch when they are stimulated and look away when they are
bored. They watch when they understand and look away when they
are confused"
This
result sounded very familiar to me. Children are sophisticated enough
to pay attention when what they are watching is meaningful. As soon
as it becomes difficult or impossible to follow they tune out. If
this is true of children, why is it not true of adults? The truth
is I believe that this trait never leaves us and it is an important
result for Interaction Design. Why?
The
newspaper industry widely exploits this knowledge to niche market
products [note: the US newspaper market is not typical in this respect
as papers tend to be local in nature, the British newspaper market
is perhaps the finest example of such niche marketing, though it
is also evident in other European countries]. For example broadsheet
newspapers like The Times, or The Guardian or The Herald Tribune,
are aimed at advanced readers with a high school education and probably
a college degree. The text is deliberately difficult. For those
without much high school these papers are simply too difficult.
When you see such a reader put a broadsheet paper down, you might
assume that they got bored. The real reason is that it is too difficult
to read. The cognitive friction associated with too many syllables
and long complex sentences is too great. The reader is not bored,
after all much of the material covered is the same as in tabloid
newspapers. No, they aren't bored. The effort of understanding is
too great. So they put it down and ask if you have a tabloid paper
like The Sun or The Mirror or USAToday instead. This is exactly
the same behavior as seen in 4 year old "Sesame Street"
viewers.
Now
consider what happens when a participant in a usability test gives
up on a question or task. How many of them got bored? More than
likely, they got confused. The effort to decipher the intended operation
of the system, was too great so they tuned out. On the web this
is as disastrous as it is in the land of TV. With TV, the viewer
can switch channels. With the web, the user can simply click to
another competitive site. The problem of stickiness is the
same. It isn't about getting the user to remember the website or
the viewer the TV show. It's about getting them to stay with it
and not press that button and tune out.
For
me, Gladwell's argument and the results of the researchers, Anderson
and Lorch, obviate that a website or information appliance which
is too difficult to understand will cause the user to tune out.
Cognitive Friction or more accurately, avoidance of cognitive friction
is key to stickiness.
Usability
Testing fixes the little things that make a difference
"Blue's
Clues" was to improve on the retention rate of viewers by learning
from the earlier result that confusion is the main cause of viewer
drop-off. The kids tune out when they don't understand. "Blue's
Clues" has a regular formula where a puzzle is presented at
the beginning and then through half an hour show, the kids are presented
with a series of increasingly difficult clues until they can guess
the answer to the puzzle at the end of the show. The show is designed
to be sufficiently difficult that even bright young kids will need
to follow until the end to guess the answer. The show is repeated
several times in a single week. The idea is that by the end of the
week, even the slower kids will be able to follow the whole show
and get the answer. They will have learned and they will understand.
In
order to establish that a show has the proper balance and is sufficiently
difficult without being overly so, the producers test the storyboard
form of the scripts with real kids. This sounded very like usability
testing to me. They walk the kids through the storyboards and observe
what happens. They are particularly looking for kids who tune out
and want to do something else instead.
When
a kid tunes out, this is an indication that the clue was too difficult
to understand. By testing the clues in different orders with different
kids, the producers get to understand the difficulty of each clue.
Often this is counterintuitive to the adult expectation. Later the
test results are analyzed and subtle differences are made to wording
or presentation of the script and often the order of clues is changed
to provide a smooth learning process for the viewer.
The
idea is simple. The dropout point should come as late in the show
as possible and the kids should come back the next day for the rerun
and get further because they are learning. This is a truly sticky
TV show.
Gladwell
argues that the testing and minor modifications to each script demonstrate
that little things can make a big difference. He chooses to classify
this testing and script modification process as a "little thing".
However, there is a strong argument to be made that a methodical
approach to your profession and validation of its output through
rigorous and scientific testing, is not as trivial as the word "little"
suggests.
If
you extrapolate the "Blue's Clues" example to Interaction
Design, then a script is a design, and the storyboard walkthrough
is a usability test on a high (or low) fidelity prototype. The tests
reveal where the users are having cognitive difficulty, the points
where they fail to understand. By identifying these points, design
changes can be made and the resulting design will be easier to understand.
In our line of work, this is referred to as "more usable"
or "user friendly".
Is
Usability the key to The Tipping Point?
What
Gladwell really fails to establish fully in his children's TV story
is whether the improved understandibilty of these two shows and
the improved stickiness of their content was actually what
swung the balance and made them hugely successful. What other factors
may have been influential - time slot, competitive programming,
cuteness of the characters and so forth? The author is undoubtedly
convinced but the cause and effect are never truly established.
The
same could be said of software products, web sites and information
appliances. Does a good design, influenced by early usability testing
truly tip the balance for huge success? Is a sticky, usability
refined design truly The Tipping Point? Probably not! Like
most other products, a good design doesn't guarantee success. There
is still marketing, channels to market, sales strategy, capitalization
of the business and many many more elements which can make the difference.
Understanding
"The Tipping Point" and knowing what can make a difference
to your product is important. Knowing how to create stickiness
through the tight coupling of design and early usability testing
is a true benefit. The Law of the Few also gives us clues
about how to go about building the early market and eventually crossing
the chasm to mass market success. Perhaps too, The Power of Context
gives further clues about how to set up conditions for success and
identify what is right for a market.
It
seems to me that the book is slightly mistitled. "The Tipping
Points" might be better! The success of your design and
your product lies with more than just usability testing to improve
stickiness but it is a very good place to start.
Order
"The Tipping Point" from Amazon...
|
