There are several benefits to user experience design, and I'll list some of them. Before I begin, a quick note: user experience design to me encompasses EVERYTHING, from UI design to customer support processes to retail store design and packaging. So when I speak of "user experience" I'm thinking about any touch point a user can have with a company.

Increased customer satisfaction. The better experience you create for your customers, the happier they will. And the opposite is also true: the worse experience you provide to your customers they will become more and more frustrated with what you are providing them… And they will be far less likely to recommend your offering to friends and families. And dissatisfied customers call to complain, which means when you provide a good experience you also have…

Reduced cost of ownership and support. If you produce a product (hardware or software) that has an easy-to-learn (and easy-to-use) design, you will have to support that product less. Good design also reduces your total "cost of ownership", in that you will need less documentation, a smaller support staff, and less salespeople. Which brings us to…

Increased sales. Happy users share their happiness with their circle of friends and family. They also review your offering online. Providing a good experience helps build positive word of mouth, and increases sales. It also often results in increased customer loyalty and therefore repeat business.

Good karma. OK, this one is not really a measurable benefit, but I think that if you create something that helps people do something well and makes thier lives better then you will benefit from that effort. Case in point: One of my first major successes in user experience design was the creation of a streamlined process to sign up for electronic bills. This process resulted in a huge "hockey stick" uplift in adoption, which in turn meant a lot less trees were destroyed to print paper bills. My company did well, it had a positive environmental impact, and the success helped my career. Win, win, and win.

See question on Quora

The best response I have to this question is "it depends." Depends on the organizational culture, the amount of design rationale you have to back up your design decisions, the personalities at play in both sides of the conversation, and the roles and responsibilities of the team members.

If you are working in an organization that doesn't respect UX then you may end up struggling with everyone, not just developers.  You'll need to expend extra effort convincing stakeholders and decision-makers that your designs and/or ideas have merit and should be listened to. This can be very frustrating, and it may take several design "wins" to get enough "street cred" to help you in your pitches.

If you come into a situation with designs and not a lot of background reach and design rationale you may experience some challenges. Many people are critical by nature and will approach any design with skepticism. Having research, usability test results, and a solid design rationale will help explain why the work you have produced Is the right direction.

If the developers, or whoever receives the output of your design activities, are hyper-critical and/or disrespectful, then you have a personality issue to overcome. You need to approach such a challenge with professionalism and try your best. If it's a systemic disrespect shown towards UX design and designers, you may need to find another place to work.

If you are in a large group and many of them are critical or expect you to rationalize your work, you may need to look at the roles and responsibilities of the members of the group. Everyone has an opinion… You need to look at the "deciders" and focus on them. One way to approach it is to get that approval and ignore everyone else, and let the stakeholders you have convinced make your arguments for you.

One final thought: should you justify every choice you make? No, you need to present your work with confidence and push back against an attempts to rationalize everything. If you fall into that trap, you may be focusing on trivia instead of the core aspects of what's important.

See question on Quora

These are high-level, but I think still specific enough to be actionable. These are principles to apply to a design project, and good UX design is reflected in these principles.

Know your users. Have a firm and clear "target" in mind for who you are designing for. Get such insights by conducting user interviews, studying the domain you are designing in, and working with your business stakeholders and subjetc matter experts to identify the audience for what you are designing.

Identify what you are NOT designing. Knowing what you are NOT doing is as important as knowing what you are doing. Define a crisp and short list of what you are going to do and don't get distracted from it. Do two or three things well, instead of eight or nine badly.

Focus. Design with a purpose, and take all distractions out of your view as you work.

Iterate. You aren't going to get it right the first time. Refine, test, iterate.

Simplify. If you think something is too complicated, then the users will probably feel even more so. Strip out everything that is unnecessary and then, after testing it with users, add only things that help and support the experience – not distract from it.

So, to summarize: A good UX deisgn reflects how users think, is simple and focused, and has been refined and tested before implementation.

See question on Quora

I’ve gone to the Disney parks a lot. And when I say “a lot” I mean “over 20 times.” I’ve hit the parks on both coasts, and hope to someday visit the parks outside the US. When comes to least pleasant aspects, I have some examples that I think are worth noting.

First off, there is definitely a drop-off in quality if you stay at one of the value (i.e. cheap) resorts at Walt Disney World. One of the last trips my family took we stayed at a value resort, and the quality of service and the cleanliness of the room left a LOT to be desired. Walking barefoot on the floor of my hotel room left my feet pitch black after a few steps. The staff at the value resorts also tend to not provide as much “disney magic” (i.e. friendly, positive service) as what you get from staff at the moderate and deluxe results. While Disney would like you to think that all their resorts are superb… well, there is a class system at work, and if you pay more you get better service – period.

(Yes, I know that many of you reading this will have had great experiences staying in value resorts, and that’s fine… I have too. I’ve just noticed the difference between the “little-s” service you get at the value resorts and the “capital-s” Service you get at the pricey Deluxe resorts. It is what it is.)

Second, Disney has structured their tickets and vacation packages in a way that is absolutely ingenious… ingenious in getting Disney as much of your money as possible. After their three day tickets, the price of adding extra days are neglegible… less than $10 a day per ticket. This is brilliant, in that it leads many people to extend their vacations and locks them into Disney… why spend $100+ dollars on tickets to Universal Studios or Sea World, when you can go to another Disney park for less than $10? A day that you will be spending money on food, toys, drinks… money that all goes to Disney.

Disney’s Magical Express, which (for free) picks you up from the airport and takes you straight to your resort, is another part of that same strategy. It’s something that you can view as an absolute positive… until you realize that you’re “trapped” on Disney property your entire vacation (unless you call a taxi or buy a rental car).

Third, if you go in summer… be prepared to sweat, especially at Walt Disney World in Orlando. That, and the huge crowds, make a “pleasant” experience nearly impossible. As big as the Disney park is, you are going to have uncomfortable experiences and situations happen if you go to the park at “peak season.” You’ll also pay more for the privilege.

Fourth, if you want to get the most out of a vacation at a Disney Park, you MUST PLAN your days. You need to make your dining resverations months in advance (seriously – the most popular restaraunts book up over 60 days ahead of time) and you need to try and hit all the most popular rides at “rope drop”, otherwise you will probably not get to ride them because of high demand. Many people want a vacation to be… well, a vacation. Disney ain’t like that. To get the most out of a Disney vacation, you need to structure your days and your nights and schedule things out. I’ve gone with family members who had NO IDEA how hard it was to get last-minute dining reservations and to get onto their favorite rides, and because of that they spent a lot of time in lines and eating extremely average counter service meals (that still cost a pretty penny).

Finally, in every resort and throughout their parks Disney promotes the Disney Vacation Club, which is a VERY expensive timeshare that makes Disney a lot of money, with (in my opion) very little value provided to the buyer of said timeshare. Try not to get trapped into a conversation with a DVC salesperson… you’ll end up potentially losing hours away from your vacation trapped in a sales pitch.

See question on Quora

LinkedIn, like Google and Facebook, benefits from the more it "knows" about you. As I and others have frequently mentioned, you are not the user of such services… You are the product that the service "sells." In LinkedIn's case, the more information they have about their users makes the paid services they sell more desirable to those who choose to use them (especially recruiters). How they weigh the information in profiles to get to 100% is (if they are smart, and I know they are) based on getting the most valuable information entered by their users.

The LinkedIn UI design that urges users to get to 100% complete in their profile, by the way, is a very good example of "gamification." We all want to "win" and when we see something is incomplete we are motivated to do what it takes to get to 100%… and so we fill out the missing information.

See question on Quora

Timing is everything. When Minority Report came out, it was in the early days of the User Experience design field, a time when decision-makers at companies started paying attention to design. As it was the first movie that featured a gestural interface, us designer types got excited about it… And ;they "name-checked" the movie in multiple presentations and "pitches" to said decision-makers. It became almost a "meme".

The ;Minority Report UI isn't better or worse than any other fictional UI, it's just was the first to be "different" than the more conventional UIs seen on screen. It's brought up so often because of that, because of the aforementioned timing, and because no other fictional UI has made a bigger impression since then.

See question on Quora

There are two ways to look at this question: From a business perspective, and from a creative perspective.

From a business perspective, you have to start by looking at the recent history of the franchise and the current marketplace. Star Trek on TV was losing more and more viewers as time went by, until the final series Enterprise was canceled. Was this an indication of declining interest, quality, or both? I won't debate the quality question, but will say that viewership for almost ALL shows was declining in the last years of Enterprise, and has continued to decline since (even hit shows have less "eyeballs" than even five years ago).

So, you have declining viewership to deal with. Home video sales of TV seasons, once a fat profit center for studios, has become far less so as well (with the advent of streaming and a weak economy, many fans skip buying the series of DVD or bluray). Star Trek as a licensed property (for books, games, toys, T-shirts, etc.) is still pulling in a nice "annuity" for Paramount… would a new series provide for additional licensing opportunities? Sure, but licensing fees won't cover the production cost of a show (unless it's incredibly popular or the show is very cheap to produce).

That last point is key: Even if you take advantage of standing sets, costumes, and props, a Star Trek show is very expensive show to make, and requires a big investment… and because of the many reasons cited above, Hollywood is in a very "risk averse" phase right now. If a TV producer has to choose between an expensive SF show or a three-camera sitcom, a cop show, or a reality show… they'll pick the cheap show. One can make an argument that Star Trek has a built-in audience, one that will show up week after week… but the counter arguement is a very blunt one: when Enterprise was on the air, the ratings weren't there… and the ratings have not been there for other SF shows such as Fringe or Terra Nova.

And not just ratings, but demographics: Are Star Trek fans in that desirable 18 to 35 demographic? Based on my research, the JJ Abrams 2009 Trek movie brought a LOT of new fans to the franchise… and many of them are in that coveted group. Will they tune in to a TV show every week, though? That's a big question.

So, is there a business reason for Star Trek to be on TV again? Maybe, if the numbers work out. How can they? The obvious solution is an animated series, a la Star Wars The Clone Wars. It would be cheaper to produce, it would allow the producers the opportunity to do scenes and aliens that would be difficult to do in live action, and if it strikes the right tone it could appeal to adults and kids alike. And the upside to an animated series is it would helps grow the fanbase in a different way than a new film does.  It wouldn't be prime time Star Trek like we've had before, but it would still be Trek on TV again.

Now, the creative question: Are there any more stories to be told? Can a new Star Trek series again take us to where no one has gone before? It depends on the talent involved. A good example when it comes to this is the other famous SF TV franchise, Doctor Who. The show has had various showrunners over the years, and many episodes were really bad… But even some of the best creative people can have a bad day. The deeper problem occurs when you have bad SEASONS, not just the occassional episode. This happened on Doctor Who, and this decline in quality led to declining viewers and the halt in production for several years.

I bring this up as a case study of what to avoid. If you get the wrong showrunner and writing staff behind a new Star Trek show, then you will sabotage the notion before it even begins. There's always possibilities, Spock said… possibilities to tell good stories with interesting characters in the Star Trek universe. Go forward thousands of years past Kirk and Spock, do an anthology show with different ships and crews on different misisons, do a Starfleet Academy show, do a Starfleet Black Ops show… There's lots of "space" to play in.

If you don't have the talent to tell such stories, though… then you shouldn't even try.

See question on Quora

The main difference between the original Battlestar Galactica series and the remake is in tone. The remake was much darker than the original, and much more "realistic" about how characters would react to the destruction of the 12 Colonies and the loss of billions of lives. In the original series the characters were kinda sad for about fourteen minutes and then, Wow! Look! A space casino! Not to say that the original series didn't have its darker moments (the Count Iblis storyline was pretty dark, in a fairy-tale way) but there was just no gravitas. It was a different type of show, a space opera adventure instead of a SF drama.

The other major differences are the religious and political was much more important in the new series – religion was a huge subtext, and the jockeying for power resulted in elections and an attempted coup. Religion obviously also had a big part in the controversial ending, involving Angels and a frequently criticized "God did it" aspect.

When you start to look at other variations: the different sexes for some characters, the "replicant" Cylons, the Final Five, the introduction of several new characters such as Laura Roslyn and Chief , the loss of original series characters such as Daggitt, Serina and the Imperous Leader… It's simpler to document what was DIDN'T change than what was different.

What was the same (between the two series):

• The 12 Colonies (and destruction of same)
• The original Cylon designs
• The original Viper designs
• The Battlestar Galactica and Pegasus surviving the attack
• The Adama family
• A hotshot pilot named Starbuck
• A ragtag fleet searching for Earth
• A character who betrays humanity named Gaius Baltar
• A fight for survival
• Supply rationing as a plot point
• A kid named Boxey (only in the miniseries)

In my opinion, the remake was the textbook example of  EXACTLY what you want to do when you remake anything – you keep the core of the original, and add depth and your own take on the material. Of course, where the debate occurs is what you define as "core," which is why many people don't like JJ Abrams' Star Trek film (because it changed too many things that were "core" to those fans/critics).

See question on Quora

No, a product is not an experience, it is part of an experience.

As I've written before, the idea that anyone can "design an experience" is incorrect. You design solutions and products that are a part of user's experience, and what you design has to be crafted in a way that both reflects the user's expectations and supports their needs and behavior. You do that be doing the "leg work" by researching the user and learning what works and what doesn't for them. When you try and "design an experience" I think some designers focus on the wrong things – the UI, the features – and therefore lose site of the people who use it.

A product can, however, be part of an ecosystem, which gets much closer to being a more holistic reflection of the user's experience. The best products have an ecosystem that is aligned with user's needs and workflows, and therefore is percieved as having a "better experience." What Apple has done with the iTunes/iPod/Iphone/Mac/iPad infrastructure is an attempt at such an ecosystem, and for many people this interconnected product suite works quite well for them. And it doesn't work at all for others… people are different.

See question on Quora

The obvious answer to me is in usability testing.

Define a series of tasks that you want to test the packaging for. The obvious task for packaging is…well, opening it. The next obvious task is about the content displayed/printed on the package. What is the product? What are the primary features that the packaging tells you about? Once you have the tasks, you test several sealed packages with participants. You record them as they try and open the package, as well as describe to you what they think of the package's printed content. You run them through the content-specific tasks you have defined. You have them do a standard usability questionaire after the tasks, one that is rewritten to align with the tasks tested. 

You can even do A/B testing of different versions of the packaging if you have the time and capability.

After analyszing the test results and the questionaires, you should have a fairly good idea what works and what doesn't. As the opening of a package is one of the first "experiences" that most customers have with a new product, more companies should be focused on designing the packaging (and evaluating and measuring this) than actually are.

See question on Quora

The same way you prepare for any other interview: RELAX.

If you go into an interview stressed and nervous, guess what the person or persons interviewing you will think? "Wow, he's nervous." That may be enough to cast doubt in your capabilities and abilities in their mind. 

Look at an interview as a conversation, with the topic being what you have done and what you can do. Don't be cocky, but be confident. Put together your portfolio that showcases your best work… but don't volunteer to show it – wait to be asked. The best interview I had was one that I didn't have to show any of my work at all – the people interviewing me could tell that I could do the job because I told them what I would do if I got it.

Which is a key thing - besides getting your design samples in order, decide how you will actually DO the job if you get it it. It's easier if you are applying for a job you've done before, of course… prepare an answer, and volunteer it if the interviewer(s) don't ask you directly. It helps, and demonstrates your capabilities and that you have thought beyond just getting the job.

Finally, listen and react. If you are applying for a UX job, soft skills are very important, and you need to demonstrate these in an interview – because you'll be using them in your job. A lot.

See question on Quora

I'm looking at this question semi-scientifically. 

When you look at the 10 "best" of anything, you have to look at the characteristics of that "thing" and then find examples where every identified characteristic is exemplary. For movies, I think the key characteristics to look at are:

• Story/Plot
• Acting
• Directing
• Music
• Cinematography

The following films are absolutely top notch in all of the above:

• Jaws
• Citizen Kane
• The Shawshank Redemption
• Chinatown
• Casablanca
• The Godfather
• Die Hard
• North by Northwest
• Alien
• Lawrence of Arabia

Are they the best movies of all time? I'd say yes, and the reason I didn't swap out other films (such as Star Wars or The Dark Knight) was they had slight deficiencies compared to films I included (The Dark Knight had some plot problems, for example, and Star Wars has some acting that is not quite top shelf)

See question on Quora

As someone who has designed software for many a bank, as well as done ethnographic research in and around branches, I have some very direct ideas on how the banking experience at branches can be improved. 

Have express lanes. If someone is coming in to just do one thing, like cash or deposit a check, then have dedicated lines to support those "fast" transactions.

Have a "genius bar." A dedicated customer support area will allow the tellers to take care of the simple transactions and the customers with problems and/or questions can have their own place to go.

Have smarter ATMs. There is no reason that ATMs can't let customers see their last 10 transactions, or print out a statement. Basically, make ATMs self-service kiosks with better software and more features.

Have a change-making/conversion machine. Have a lot of change that you want to change into "folding money?" There is no reason anyone needs to stand in line to talk to a teller to do this. 

Seminars. Banks should offer free seminars to customers on money management, budgeting, etc. It helps customers, it helps the banks increase deposits when customers save more… it's a win-win.

Change the bank's operating hours. 9 to 5? Really? Have hours that make sense for customers, not for bankers.

Increase staff at peak times/days. Many banks already do this, but a surprisng number do not. Banks need to analyze/take advantage of their analytical data to refine thier staffing plans. Have more people on hand during lunch hours and on days when the majority of people get paid (usually every other Friday or the 15th or 30th of the month). This is customer service 101 stuff.

See question on Quora

It was at Dragon*Con 2009, a HUGE convention in Atlanta, GA. One of my all-time favorite filmmakers, Terry Gilliam, was there, promoting his (then new) movie The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus. 

 Terry Gilliam had a panel on Friday afternoon, in a HUGE auditorium. Imagine a football field, with Terry Gilliam on stage in the end zone, and me standing behind a microphone on the opposing team's 30 yard line. After talking for an hour, he opened the floor to questions. I was the first person in line. 

I told him how much I loved his first movie, The Fisher King and asked him if he had any interesting anecdotes about the making of the movie. No sooner had I finished speaking, when…

He looked confused, and my heart sank. Oh, crap, I’m one of THOSE guys – asking an obnoxious question the panelist doesn’t want to answer.

But that wasn’t it – “I’m sorry," he eventually replied, "I could barely hear you – the sound system is very bad. Can you come closer?”

“Sure,” I quickly said, and proceeded to walk all the way  from the back of this VERY big room to the front of the stage, skipping like Pied Piper (as I was leading a couple of dozen questioners behind me). Terry then got up from behind the table he was sitting at on stage and he leaned down towards me, hand on my shoulder.

Before the thoughts OMGIMSTANDINGINFRONTOFTHOUSANDSOFPEOPLE WITHTERRYGILLIAMSTARINGATME had a chance to race through my mind my comedic instinct kicked in.

I started yelling, with him standing less than three feet away.

“I SAID I WAS A BIG FAN OF THE FISHER KING!”

He started giggling, and if you have ever seen lengthy interviews with Terry Gilliam, you know he’s a giggler. He repeated my question to the audience.

“HE’S A BIG FAN OF THE FISHER KING!” he screamed, cupping his hands to yell through them.

“IT’S A GREAT MOVIE!”

“IT’S A GREAT MOVIE!” Gilliam repeated, giggling some more.

“YOU SHOULD ALL SEE IT!” I said, turning to the audience. Again, Gilliam repeated me.

Before I spoke again, it dawned on me I was now doing an impromptu comedy bit. With Terry Gilliam. From Monty Python. In front of an auditorium of thousands of people.

O. M. G.

“DO YOU HAVE ANY INTERESTING ANECDOTES ABOUT THE MAKING OF THE MOVIE?” I finished asking/shouting.

“DO I HAVE ANY INTERESTING ANECDOTES! GOT IT.” And at that, he raced back to his seat and his mike and I sat down in the front row.

Because of that, ALL of the people asking questions were then able go to the front of the stage and ask their question to him in person, even after they fixed the mike and sound system. Many of them came over and thanked me for "breaking the ice" and letting them have their own special moments meeting Mr. Gilliam. 

I saw Terry later that evening, and he said, smiling after he recognized me, “that was fun.”

No, it was more than that. It was awesome.

See question on Quora

Being a close follower of Apple and their design decisions, I'd say a primary reason the Mac Mini doesn't have that connection is simple: it's not a portable computer, and it doesn't have a battery.

The idea behind the MagSafe connector is to prevent laptops from being yanked off tabletops when someone trips over the cord. When this happened before, the laptop inevitably ends up damaged. This, obviously, is a bad experience. As  the MagSafe is a great solution to this problem, it was added to the laptop family.

The Mac mini is a desktop computer. While it is a very small form factor, and is easily portable, it still needs the "trappings" of a desktop computer to work – a monitor, mouse and a keyboard. So adding the MagSafe connector will only benefit the minority who takes this computer with them… And could very well tick off the majority if the MagSafe connector is pulled out in the middle of an important task (see the "no battery" comment, above).

See question on Quora

Lots of things.

They decided not to build a MIDI "break-out" box a couple of years ago, even though the product was ready for production according to some sources.

They decided to stop making printers.

They decided to simplify thier product lineup, to have two (then three, then four) lines to sell. Desktops, laptops, (and eventually) mobile phones and tablets.

They decided to stop licensing their OS to third-party hardware manufacturers.

They decided to not go open-source.

They decided to no longer sell previously successful products when they felt they had reached end of life (iPod Mini) and when they didn't align with the rest of their products (white MacBook).

They decided to not sell computers based on specifications, but instead on the experiences that such devices provide, allow, and support.

They decided to not have a physical keypad on their phone.

And so on.

See question on Quora

Perfect is the enemy of good, and perfect is also a very high bar to achieve. I don't know if I'd say that the following are perfect, but they ae very good indeed:

Simplenote let's you take notes and write. It also syncs your text to all other devices that have the appropriate software in the background. It's simple and just works.

Instagram let's you take and share photos, and the UI is very very good. It's a app that is both usable and fun to use.

Another "insta" app, Instapaper let's you read web pages offline, and presents the text in a way that is quite readable.

Finally, I look at Zite as an interface that is incredibly useful but one that "gets out of the way" and let's you concentrate on reading, which is the key to a good mobile UI.

See question on Quora

Designing for the Digital Age: How to Create Human-Centered Products and Services by Kim Goodwin is a favorite of mine, in the fact that it is just so comprehensive. It's THE book to me.

A Project Guide to UX Design: For user experience designers in the field or in the making is a great primer on UX and a good book around project planning.

The Persona Lifecycle: Keeping People in Mind Throughout Product Design (Interactive Technologies) is THE definitive reference to creating personas.

The Design of Everyday Things by Don Norman is the seminal work on UX design and should be the first book in any library.

Don't Make Me Think: A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability is another "classic" in the domain.

About Face 3: The Essentials of Interaction Design is Alan Cooper's magnum opus on interaction design.

The Elements of User Experience: User-Centered Design for the Web and Beyond by Jesse James Garrett because it's awesome.

Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design by Bill Buxton, because it's really good and practical.

Mental Models: Aligning Design Strategy with Human Behavior by Indi Young because it's a great foundational book about understanding how users think of certain domains.

Inspired: How To Create Products Customers Love by Marty Cagan, because desirability is something that is not covered by most books on UX.

See question on Quora

Have a "smart" FAQ. Make the primary section be the most frequently "asked" questions, based on analytics. Show only the top 10, with an options o view more. Have an obvious link to view all and an obvious text field to search all. Have a section at the bottom of the detailed answer page that asks "did this answer your question?" and an option to add an explicit question to the FAQ if it does not. If they enter an explicit question, try to search one more time against this text. If no results are retrieved then ask them if they want to be contacted if the answer to this question is ever added to the FAQ, and if so enter an e-mail address.

This design does several things: it "crowdsources" the most popular questions into a top 10. It allows for quick search and/or browsing activity. Finally, it engages the user by asking them to add their own question and allows you to capture an e-mail address that you can use to potentially respond at a later date.

Walk them through a previous design project. Pull out all the design artifacts, from concept design to detailed specifications. Show them video from any usability tests that took place. Demonstrate the process that was followed to go from a high-level problem statement and concept(s) to a detailed and final solution. And don't try and do this all at once… take your time to tell the story about the design and the steps taken.

Then, throw them in the deep end – give them a small project to design, and leverage the same methodology you just detailed. Mentor, encourage, and be constructive when being critical. Let them learn by doing.

See question on Quora

Confidence is good. Arrogance is not. The key is to be confident but also open to other people's ideas and to the possibility that you may be mistaken and/or your design could be improved.

Let's use Sherlock Holmes as an example. Sherlock Holmes was the world's first consulting detective, and he was incredibly skilled in deduction and the history of crime. He was very confident in his abilities, and his repeated successes reinforced that confidence. He also was often arrogant, and this character flaw alienated many he worked with, even his "Boswell" Dr. Watson. His arrogance sometimes distracted from his ability to convince people, as it "turned off" the people he needed to believe him.

Now, obviously, we are not all at the super-expert level of a Sherlock Holmes or a Dr. House (his modern-day counterpart), but if we were it would probably be hard to NOT be arrogant… though, as I note below, such arrogance is self-defeating. He needed a partner to keep such arrogance in check – to keep him "grounded."

Confidence comes with experience, and experience is the best teacher. But the key is to know what you DON'T know, and to ask questions whenever they need to be asked.

Finally, I'm a very passionate advocate of "peer designing," where two designers work together on a problem. Not only does it double the brainpower that is being applied, but it also allows for easy peer reviews and design critique. Much like Holmes needed Watson, I think we work best when we work with a partner to keep us in check.

See question on Quora

When it comes to tracking productivity in UX design, the focus should always be on the outcomes, quality and hitting key milestones, and not on day-to-day activity. Because there is no one "perfect" UX design process (just as there is no one perfect software development process) each project is going to have different timeliness and needs. One project may be heavy on detailed design documentation, and is easier to "track" than one that is focused on user research and foundational understanding.

But even with a project that is "documentation-heavy", you have to be careful not to fall into the "to do list trap" of just crossing off things. Here's why: You can get all your design work done in a timely matter, but if the design sucks, who benefits? Certainly not the user, and definitely not your company. Yes, you will "look good" in the short term, in that management sees you are "hitting your dates"… but you will be burned later if the design was rushed and ill-concieved. Trust me, I've been there.

How does an individual designer measure his own productivity? There are many different techniques I have seen and used, including the GTD methodology. But in the end, I think UX design isn't about "productivity" it's more about problem solving, and making a difference for users. So I look at satisfaction as a more important personal metric around my design work than the number of UI widgets I can crank out in a week.

As a design manager, how to track productivity? Well, in addition to the above, I make sure that the designers have time to refine, iterate, and fail. Yes, fail. We learn a lot by piloting early designs with users and finding out what doesn't work. Identify key milestones, let the designers follow the process that they are comfortable with, and focus on quality. Keeping in mind, of course, that deadlines are absolutely necessary as a motivator and a way to "focus the brain."

See question on Quora

I have used multiple techniques to do this, depending upon the amount of time available on the design project. At the very least, you need to have focus as to what you are designing, and know the target audience for what you are doing. Shakespeare wrote "the readiness is all" and before you are ready to dive into the UI "layer" you have to understand those two core things

There are best practices that can be borrowed and applied from other industries, and I've borrowed two key processes from journalism and film pre-production to define my "foundation"

The first is the Journalism 101 principle of Who What When Where and Why:

Who is this design for?
What will they be doing?
When will they use it (how often)?
Where will they use it?
Why would they use it (as oppossed to another process or application)?

This last question gets to the heart of the value proposition of what is being designed/developed. In my opinion, if you can answer all these questions to YOUR satisfaction, then you are ready to get to the next step in designing the interface.

So, how do you get the answers? Well, some of these answers can be provided by the business analysts you are working with, or the key stakeholders… But I've found that the best way to get the answers is to talk to the users themselves, to understand thier workflows, thier needs and frustrations… by doing it yourself the answers will be more "personal" to you and will remain "top of mind" as you do your design work.

The second process is storyboarding or user stories. I think you don't need both, as they both service the same need. You should do whatever you are most comfortable doing. if you're a person who sketches a lot, do storyboards. If you enjoy writing, then do user stories. The point of this is to define a "flow" of the tasks that the users do in and with what you are designing – always keep in mind this is NOT UI design, you are capturing and defining the user experience. You can share these artifacts with key stakeholders to review and get concensus and THEN, after all are agreed, start doing the interface design work.

There's more things that you can do (persona definition, ethnographic research, competitive analysis, focus groups) but I consider the above to be the bare minimum.

See question on Quora

Apple created the iBookstore and the new iBook Author tool. As creator of said platform/application, they can put stuff in their EULA that says "you must never use this tool without wearing pants" if they want. It's their IP, they can do what they want. But just because they can set whatever terms they want doesn't mean they should set unreasonable ones. To many, the "if you want to profit from this work you need to cut us in on it and you can't go anywhere else" clause is unreasonable, like the aforementioned hypothetical "pants" restriction. Personally, I don't think it's unreasonable… I do however think it's self-defeating for Apple.

The "exclusivity" clause will make creative people think twice, and many will avoid the iBooks storefront/platform all together due to it. Who does that hurt? Certainly not the creative types because they have multiple tools they can use and multiple channels to promote and sell their content (look up "the Internet"). It will end up reducing the variety and choice in the iBookstore… making users less likely to think of iBooks as the "first choice" for ebook shopping. it hurts Apple more.

I have two books available for sale on both the Kindle and the iBooks store. I'm working on two more. One of them will be available anywhere, the other will only be on iBooks and be created using the iBooks Author tool. Why? Because I am selling the first book and giving away the second, so the restriction doesn't "hurt" me…. and I don't "need" the iBooks Author tool to create my work. Would it make my life easier if I can use iBooks Author to do ALL my ebooks? Sure. But it's not a deal breaker for me.

See question on Quora

Users are creatures of habit who don't like change. Resistance (to change) is something I've written and researched extensively with users – people don't like to change even if it's good for them, because they are comfortable with how things are. 

Apple wants to become part of user's lives, and the more they are the more likely that inertia will set in. The more integrated Apple products are in user's lives the harder it is to "break" from the "Apple way." They are "locked in."

In addition to a more integrated and usable experience, services like iCloud work best on – surprise! – Apple hardware. 

Being an Apple "fanboy" (and shareholder) I look at this positively, because both parties benefit – users get a better experience (most of the time) and Apple sells more stuff.

See question on Quora

Two reasons I can think of:

First, the focus of the reservation process is booking the trip, and so the location of your seat is secondary to that. It may be important to you and many others, but it is not the primary factor for most (the two most important ones are schedule and price). You’ll notice, however, that in some instances the location of the seat has a cost associated with it (first class vs. coach) and in those cases user DO “pick their seat” – just not the exact one. The same process is applied with concert or sports tickets, in that you usually select a “preferred” ticket zone (and all the zones have different pricing).

Picking a seat is also a challenge to do in “real time” if you allow anyone to do it at any point in the reservation process – if it’s open to play with then seats will have to be held and then released if the customer doesn’t commit to buying the ticket (and there are high abandon rates in all reservation systems) – which raises the risk of NOT selling a seat on a flight that is not really “sold out” (it just has a lot of seats on “temporary hold”).

See question on Quora

A good question, and I've written about this quite a bit. First, provide points or virtual currency that actually let you DO something with them – a good example is XBOX points that users can use to get content or add-ons. Earning virtual currency is great – but they have to have some percieved or real value. I have a ton of points with Quora and Empire Avenue that I can't "spend" because there's nothing I see there that I want to spend it on or provides me anything of "value". Use some ideas from games to "add features" that the customer can get by "cashing in" points. Provide surprises and promotions to loyal users, identifyable by session time and number of logins. Recognize your users as who they are: People.

While it's not a web app, I really like what Think Geek does. If you place an order on thier site you get Geek Points that you can spend on free stuff with your next order. Not only does that give user a tangible value (200 points equals approximately $10 worth of merchandise) but it encourages the user to place additional orders (making a casual customer into a repeat customer).

When it comes to serving the egos of your customers, I've written an article on "ego-driven design" that may be useful. You can read it here.

See question on Quora

Some reasonable guesses:

• Better Display (not quite “Retina” but close)
• Faster processor (A6?)
• More RAM
• Siri Integration
• Better camera

Some “Out there” (and semi-informed) guesses:

• Thunderbolt connectivity for faster transfer AND charging (goodbye, iPod connector)
• NFC
• Wider home button that supports gestures
• Apple will produce and sell their own Bluetooth keyboard case $79
• Wireless syncing between iOs devices (game status, files, you name it – start on one device and end on another)
• You can use the iPad 3 as a sketchpad for your mac (like a Wacom tablet) with a new drawing app from Apple (the return of Macpaint?)
• A projector attachment (for iPhone 4S or iPad) $99
• Passive 3D mode (a la Nintendo 3DS)
• New app called “Channels” that lets you “record” and stream TV shows for viewing on your iPad

See question on Quora

Why are the British detectives and spies portrayed as more sophisticated than Americans in our movies? Three reasons I can think of.

First, the genres and the archetypes of said genres both come from the United Kingdom, in an age where men were cultured and sophisticated. I refer, mainly, to James Bond and Sherlock Holmes. They are cultured, intelligent and homo superior – they enjoy the fine things of life because that is what men of high class do – and the fact that they are so erudite makes their American counterparts look crude in comparison.

Second, the American detective genre is hard-boiled, not cultured… Mike Hammer, Sam Spade… the detective in America is not cultured but aggressive and as rough as the coarsest sandpaper. They are not “consulting detectives” who live in a flat but working guys trying to earn a buck. They reflect the working stiffs who read their stories.

Third and finally, spies in American fiction have been portrayed repeatedly as either bad-ass mofo’s or as gray government employees. The emphasis has been on action or the complexities of the “real world” spy business in American fiction, and neither emphasis leads itself to “sophistication.” You rarely see American spies have the type of “exotic adventures” that the British spies do – and when I say “british spies” I mean, basically, James Bond.

See question on Quora

My company has a “UX community” that has regular meetings to share and communicate progress. It’s useful, but a little “echo chamber-y” for my tastes. The key way to keep in touch is to be involved and engaged with the work itself whenever possible – getting the information second-hand isn’t nearly as useful as being “in the trenches” and seeing when something happens.

If this is not possible, then outreach to peers in your organization when you can and have casual touch points to grind out what is going on – you’ll learn more in my experience from a chat over a drink than you probably will through a formal set of meetings…

See question on Quora

It’s a stylistic flourish that he likes, many directors have similar “affectations” that aren’t as obvious (the angle of a shot, or a tendency to use extreme close ups or tracking shots).

A similar example: Quentin Tarantino’s obsession with close ups of feet, especially women’s bare feet. It’s a personal touch of both directors, though at least JJ’s couldn’t be misinterpreted as a “fetish”… Yet.

See question on Quora

Here’s what I did when I did a contextual research project around mobile usage and habits two years ago:

First, I interviewed people. A lot of people. 30 people in three different states. I asked them about how they used their phones, what they liked, what they disliked, their pain points, what they wanted in the next phone they bought, etc. Then I asked everyone I interviewed if they would be interested in logging thier mobile usage for a full week in a daily diary, as well as fill-out a daily “report”. 20 of them agreed, and 18 of them lived up to thier commitment.

I had designed and had printed up small pocket-sized notebooks, with areas for comments as well as checkboxes that the participant could use to indicate what the activity was (“Game”, “Call”, “Text Message”, “Web”, etc.) and also created a standard questionaire for the daily reports. As the participants were in different states, I also gave them a self-addressed stamped envelope for them to send back the diaries to me.

All the participants were given VISA gift cards – one card for the interview time, and another card was mailed to them when they completed and returned the diaries.

After all the data was recieved, I typed it into excel and analyzed it to identify usage patterns and form mobile personas, which our mobile design team use to this very day…

The genesis for this approach came from a panel on mobile testing and research I attended at a UX conference – my article on that panel and additional context on the above idea is here: http://www.josephdickerson.com/b…

See question on Quora

My opinion: He's older than 35, and he's never "carried" a movie before. Add to that the fact that Hollywood is getting more and more "risk averse" and you can see why brilliant actors like Cranston aren't given the big parts.

I think he can absolutely carry a movie and could play anything… but I'd rather have 16 more hours of Walter White on TV than 2 hours of him as the lead in a movie. I'm selfish that way.

See question on Quora

Make them push, not pull. Right now you have to go "get" the updates, by clicking on the App Store icon, then going to updates. That's "pull."

Change to "push" by using the new Notification Center that was just added in IOS 5. If you have three updates, then just tell the user that through a notification. They can then respond or ignore the notification.

Also, why make the user enter their password when they make updates? It's just an update, there's no need for this security check. Remove this, or give the user the ability to disable this for updates.

Finally, Apple has setup the ability for developers to make their app updates incremental (also in IOS 5) and if widely adopted this will help make downloads smaller and improve the update process/time.

See question on Quora

You can pontificate about your organization focusing on user experience, or you can lead by example. I have found that the best way to encourage a geniune conversation is the successful implementation of a user-centered design in a project or a product. Produce results, and then make sure that decisionmakers know about them. Answer the obvious questions, even if they are not asked: "How did you do that?" But do it in a way that is easy to understand and brief.

The answers you provide should detail process and approach but also high-level cas studies of how UX design is applied in other domains successfully. This makes the point that you do more UX, your company (like the others cited) will produce better offerings and results. Understand that you are selling the value of UX, and be positive and (if you have the capacity) prolific. Produce easy-to-read whitepapers. Create an Intranet. Setup lunch and learns.

Finally, businesses are bottom-line focused: don't be academic. Be practical and pragmatic and discuss the outputs and benefits. Talk to key stakeholders in a language they understand. Focus less on the process and more on the results in order to "win over" skeptical coworkers. And don't overreach… Large organizations are huge things, and try for little wins instead of swinging for the fences.

See question on Quora

Before I became a semi-well-known user experience guy, I did magazine layouts and typography. I also studied/majored in journalism, so I read of the early days of newspapers and how they began. So, I think I’m semi-qualified to provide an answer this one.

The initial reason columns were used was because of deadlines and advertising. If your newspaper had only one column on its front page (or any age) then if some new story “broke” you’d have to redo the whole thing. Additionally journalists are taught to write using the inverted pyramid model – have the high-level summary as the first paragraph, have more specificity in the second, and so on. That way if a story needed to be trimmed (to fit another in, or place an ad) then the editor can “cut from the bottom” – and this is easier to do (and “reflow” a story) if you have a multi-column layout. Magazines used the same process and style, just with less frequent (or crushing) deadlines.

A reason why this column layout persists and is still used is it helps in readability. Less words on a line supports scalability and “breaks up” the black test with “random” gaps. Take an ebook reader like Stanza on the Mac and open a random book. Make the reader screen wide, using only one column (it helps if you have a larger monitor in this exercise). It almost hurts my eyes and is “harder” to comprehend than the same content would be if it was presented in a thinner column or multiple columns.

Finally, aesthetics plays a part. Multi column in many instances just “looks” better, and designers can do more creative things with it (in my opinion, of course).

See question on Quora

Yes, I think NPS is a fairly good indicator, but it’s a “one-dimensional” indicator. No matter how many customers you survey it is still just a survey, without much context.

Some other ways you can get a sense of how customers think of (and just as important, use) your site or product:

Analytics can be a useful indicator, but not the way you might think. If you have any way of tracking through analytics how often the application is used it can give you some great insights into how your product or site is used. If customers tend to “go” to a particular “place” often this will tell you where to focus your attention. It also may help you identify potential pain points in your experience (I’ve used analytics to identify “drop off” points in an application process to make hat process better).

Social reputation is also a key indicator. Set up saved searches for your product name(s) in Facebook, Twitter and Google+ to monitor what customers are saying about your offerings. While not “scientific,” it can give you some practical “real world” understanding.

Finally, have regular in depth discussions with customers. Even if it’s a group of 10 people, having a conversation where they discuss what they like and don’t like about your site or application will give you insight into potential areas of improvement.

See question on Quora

Upper management is far far away…

As in, several million light years away. Networking opportunities are rare. The only “face time” that you get is the occassional chat with an admiral, and then it’s usually the typical “there’s a situation on Deneb IV” and “you’re the only ship in the quadrant” stuff. Murder on career advancement.

Communication is often one way.

“Incoming message from Starfleet Command” is frequently the only information you get from management, and then it’s usually in response to a crisis. It’s pretty much the same way management at large organizations here on Earth communicates with their workers – a blanket (e-mail) message.

Middle management usually sucks.

Every time we meet a “middle manager” in the original Star Trek or on the Next Generation (a Commodore or Ambassador – not quite an Admiral, but superior to Captains), they were usually incomptent, evil, or both. Most notable example: Commodore Decker from Doomsday Machine and Ambassador Fox from A Taste of Armageddon. A rare exception was Spock’s dad Ambassador Sarek, though he eventually became non compos mentus….

Certain people aren’t cut out for a desk job.

Captaining a starship was James T. Kirk’s first, best destiny… and by accepting promotion he wasted his potential. He should have been out there hoppin’ galaxies rather than shuffling paperwork.

Even good managers can make mistakes.

Kirk got obsessed with a space cloud and pursued inappropriate sexual relations with WAY too many women. Picard let children on the bridge. The key is that good managers, flaws and all, learn from their mistakes and get better.

Good managers are responsible and concerned about their team.

“I’m responsible for the lives of 430 crewmen!” Good managers care and are “where the buck stops” when it comes to the performance and well being of their “crew.”

See question on Quora

There are some practical reasons, and some pragmatic ones.

A "thinking" device is a device that is consuming power to think (to run the processor), and hardware and software designers have to keep a core user need in mind: battery life. The more the device "thinks" the lower the battery life. So devices are designed to be instant awake "on demand" computers that respond to user input. Siri, for example, probably uses a significant amount of processing power, and I'd wager if it was on all the time it would cut the "uptime" considerably.

Additionally you look at how people work with computers and computing devices, and the key idea of user control and freedom comes to play. Do you want to be "told" what to do by your phone, or to "tell" your phone what to do? Most users want to be/stay in control… And the idea of a "thing" telling them what to do just won't be appealing. This type of interaction has to be very carefully and well designed to work.

An area where this does "work" is with GPS, where the device "tells" the user what to do… But even then, there are limits. The user is still "in control" and the GPS is supporting the user's travel, not commanding. If a GPS comes off as "nagging" when informing the user of a traffic problem then the user will be… Well, I've tested of a similar solution, and it didn't work very well. Basically, the "tone of voice" is important in this and many other contexts. Get it wrong and you'll quickly get an angry user.

Some pragmatic reasons why devices are dumb… Well, we are still limited by old models and paradigms. We have desktop computers that are capable of millions of calculations per minute and we aren't doing anything innovative or new with that capacity. No one has come forward and invented an intelligent "butler" that used the innate information we all host on our own computing devices to, well, make suggestions. To help.

"I know you like Mythbusters, so I taped the new episode for you."

"There's a new Peter Gabriel album coming out. I downloaded the details and some samples and sent it to your iPad."

"You're electricity bill was due last week, would you like me to pay it for you?"

A smart assistant, who suggests but never takes control away from the user. All of these things are possible NOW, but no one has taken the next step to leverage the different systems and computing power together.

It's coming, though. Someday.

And if anyone wants to hire me to help design such a system you know where to find me…

See question on Quora

Disabling a feature is best applied when it shows the user that they can do something, just not right now. Two examples are menu options that aren't available, or a data entry field that they can't edit. This could confuse users if done in the wrong context. For example, if it's a form field that has information that is defaulted and they can't edit it, why use a disabled form field? Just display the information as text.

I've always tried to focus on simplicity – if the user can do something, show them what they can do. If they can't, then don't present the option at all.

I think the best example of disabling is if you are in a stepped process or "wizard" – show all he steps, but disable ones the user hasn't done yet, because often these processes are interdependent – you can't do step three before step one because there's information needed in step two.

See question on Quora

Some theories…

Apple makes hardware that allows you to consume content… content that you collect and love and revisit. Music, movies, TV shows, games… we have a lot of "stuff." Apple has a distribution network that lets you instantly buy more stuff, and it's much easier than going to a store and buying a physical disc. It's a closed and very profitable ecosystem, because it is absolutely optimized to be as friction-free and personalized as possible.

Compare this to cable or satellite TV: it's also closed, but it's barely personalizable and expensive. Consumers pay for dozens of channels that they never watch, many don't have the ability to pause or record programs, and even then back-catalog content isn't readily available… and when it is it's an incredibly limited selection.

Apple has almost all the pieces to transform TV already:

• A deep catalog of content via iTunes
• "Season passes" of your favorite shows
• A personal library available on all your devices
• The ability to "push" games to your TV to share
• A cloud service that allows for ubiquitous sharing and redownloading of all your content

Hardware margins for TVs are thin, and Apple knows that… which is why they will be selling the experience, NOT the hardware specs. If/when they put out a TV it won't be the biggest or the best TV, but it will be plugged into a powerful ecosystem that competitors like Sony and Microsoft have been trying to build for years and it will have an experience that people WANT.

The "one more thing" that will make this revolutionary? I think it will be personalized "ad hoc" channels. You like Mythbusters? Spend $X a month and get access to the entire backchat along of every episode, available via streaming. Star Trek, The Wire, football, cooking shows? Same thing. Customers will have much more choice about what they watch, and these channels will be available on every Apple device they have, no matter where they are. And all of it will be ad-free.

Networks will still exist, you'll just "pay" for each network… or only pay for certain shows. If you want more content, then you buy more channels. And imagine a subscription to a Disney channel that would not be the Disney Channel that we see on cable, but a Disney channel that gives you access to everything the studio has ever done! Would many parents and movie fans pay a premium price for a TV that allowed you to access such a channel? You bet.

Content, content, content. It's about delivering a personalizable experience that users own and love, and just works. If any company can do this, Apple can.

See question on Quora

The answer to me lies in changing the question. Replace the word "designer" with "artist" or "writer" and the ask the question again.

Would you ask a writer or an artist to confirm their style? Should they? I say no, and the reason why is simple. Creativity is a personal thing, and design is a creative endeavor. If you ask a designer to stop designing in their own style you are asking them to design something that is outside of themselves. To design an impersonal thing. It would be like asking a horror writer to write ad copy. It's just… Wrong.

A brief addendum: you can always ask a creative person to "stretch", to create something outside of their comfort zone or in a medium they ave never used before… That's fine. Many designers will embrace such an opportunity but the designer's personal style will still shine through. That is the result of us being individuals…

Of being human.

See question on Quora

First, tie the research to business goals. If the business goal is to increase adoption of the company’s product in a certain demographic, then emphasize the need to understand these users in order to properly message the value proposition of the product to them. It directly ties the value of such research to a bottom-line goal. Be ready to make a case on the ROI of such research.

Additionally, the need to understand these users in order to design for them is important to your design team, but is probably not a priority to the business. Emphasize this less than the bottom-line value the research will bring (as noted above).

Finally, use examples of how other companies use qualitative research, even if they are not in the same “business” as your company (though it works best if you can point to competitors doing such work). I have had great success in emphasizing case studies that I found from Google, Nike, etc. as an example to follow. Basically, demonstrate that other companies have succeeded using such techniques, and we can too! It’s almost a corporate version of peer pressure…

See question on Quora

First off, UX and UI is not the same thing, so what degree you pursue is directly related to which one you want to focus on. User interfaces are the predominant canvases that user experience designers use, but if you focus on user experience as a discipline you don’t necessarily need to be good at interface design. I’ve worked with some great UI designers who weren’t very good user experience designers, and fantastic user experience designers who couldn’t create a usable UI if a gun was pointed at their head.

So… If you want to focus on user experience design, I suggest you look at psychology as a major, and a minor in technology. If you want to look at UI design, I’d consider a graphic design major with a minor in psychology. That being said, there are amazing UX people who come from many varied disciplines and have dozens of different degrees (I majored in journalism, myself), so I recommend looking at college as an opportunity to learn as much as you can about multiple disciplines.

Speaking of disciplines, a core discipline in both UX and UI is problem-solving, so if you can get a couple of classes in philosophy and logic it’ll help. Finally, many majors in Information Technology are very well-rounded and have many of the classes that would benefit someone looking into breaking into the field, so that’s something to consider as well.

See question on Quora

The best way to integrate personas with user stories are to understand that personas are characters in a story, and they have emotions, drivers and motivations just like any characters in any good stories do.

I’ve often seen the parallels between user experience design and screenwriting, and this is another great example. Good screenplays/stories present characters/personas with situations that they have to overcome or respond to. How they do so shows the measure of the character… And helps the audience/designer understand them better.

So, write user stories with your personas in mind and they will help you design the right solution that works for them. But make sure you know your personas well… Otherwise you will have them “acting” out of character.

See question on Quora

No, but he (apparently) DID like Star Trek. He mentioned Star Trek on two separate product launches, played a clip from the reboot when introducing the iPad and a shot from the newest Star Trek was used to promote the (then new) 27″ iMac on multiple Apple web pages (and there was no “corporate synergy” in play – he chose to showcase Star Trek for other reasons).

Seeing as many (including myself) see some similarities of Apple’s devices to some of those that were on the series (iPhone being a “tricorder” of sorts, and the iPad being very close to the Trek PADD device), I wouldn’t be surprised if he enjoyed an episode or two.

See question on Quora

A purely subjective list, obviously… here’s mine.

Singin’ in The Rain – The best musical, ever. It is pure happiness in cinematic form. It’ll cure what ails you!

The Godfather – The best movie, ever. It’s flawless.

Citizen Kane – The second-best movie, ever (sorry, Orson, but Francis wins!). It’s a complete film school in a box.

Star Wars – The original and the best (and no. it’s not “Episode IV: A New Hope” – when it came out it was just Star Wars).

ALIEN – The best “haunted house in space” movie ever made. Scary as hell.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan – The best Star Trek movie, ever. And a damn good movie as well.

Scrooge (the 70s musical) – A personal favorite, and one of the best holiday movies ever. And (in my opinion) the best adaptation of A Christmas Carol, ever.

A Christmas Story – “Fra-ge-lay! Must be French!” One of the most quotable and funny holiday movies ever.

Raiders of the Lost Ark – A fantastic film, and I can’t count the times I’ve watched it. Just great fun.

See question on Quora

Use personas. If you recruit using personas that have been developed based on customer research then there can be no issue that you have brought in the right test participants, because you can use the attributes as screening criteria.

Allow enough time and double-check. Make sure you allow for enough time to ensure you are getting the right people in. Have two conversations… One to initially recruit and a second follow-up conversation just before the testing. The second conversation is to ensure they were being genuine in thier initial responses. You may find that some recruits lie to get the extra money.

Recruit extra participants to have as backups. Don’t just get 10 if that’s what the research calls for… Get 12. That way if there are last-minute no-shows you don’t have to scramble… Much.

See question on Quora

Terms and Conditions suck.

If you follow the lawyers direction, the user will have to read every bloody line of the document, agree to it AND be forced to print it out and sign it as well. I wish I was kidding… But I’ve had conversations with a legal team where they expressed exactly this recommendation.

If the Ts & Cs are part of an application process and is presented in the wrong way it can stop the user dead in their tracks, and lead to them “giving up” and you lose a potential “sale.”

Like I said, they suck. So what’s a designer to do?

Hide the useless information, and highlight the important information. Have the full Ts & Cs available “on demand” (via a lightbox) but highlight the key bullets on the screen near the agreement checkbox. Example of key bullets: if its a photo sharing service, who owns the photos (it should always be the user). If it’s mostly useless, then just have a link to the Ts & Cs and the checkbox.

And yes, nobody reads them. Those few people in the world who do… Well, they’re just weird. Or lawyers. Or both.

See question on Quora