[Sigia-l] Jared Spool's article on galleries

[Olly Wright]

On FridayDec 23, at 12:05 AM, Listera wrote:

> Second, can you narrow and then generalize your request to a  
> pattern-like
> problem you've identified?

I can try. Something like "How do you enable user-friendly product  
selection when the products are complex, and users both have little  
domain knowledge and do not want to have to acquire much specific  
domain knowledge?"


On ThursdayDec 22, at 7:22 PM, Dwayne King wrote:

> I'd much rather say I want bluetooth, sms and email capability and  
> pick from a smaller list.
>
> A good example of this in the non-phone world is VW:
>
> http://www.vw.com/models_overview/chooser.html

The problem I'm referring to is illustrated here. Most people do not  
know what bluetooth is, and whilst they might be interested in using  
it, they will be put off by an overly technical description of it.  
Likewise with the VW example, where one of the selection criteria is  
Engine: 4 cylinder, 5 cylinder, 6 cylinder etc. You are asking the  
user to make a decision on a technical feature that will likely be  
obscure to many. And the overall set of criteria come across as  
technical: engine, drive type and transmission. I suspect that these  
are only secondary purchase criteria for many car consumers, behind  
for example safety rating, reliability, fuel economy, interior  
comfort etc. These kind of comparison tools in general lend  
themselves best to side by side technical comparisons, rather than  
the less tangible consumer appeal factors that drive a lot of  
purchase decisions.


On ThursdayDec 22, at 6:37 PM, Mike.Steckel at SEMATECH.Org wrote:

> 1. This is a great example of why we need to be closer to marketing.

I agree with you 100%. In my case I'm very fortunate that Sony  
Ericsson takes a progressive view towards IA and I have many  
connections to marketing and marketing strategy. For me that's when  
IA starts to get really interesting, when you step out of the pure 
(ish) world of usability and have to incorporate the real-world  
messiness of global marketing, business cases and enterprise-level  
scalability / efficiency.

> 2. I am not convinced that categorizing phones is "right out." One  
> of my
> struggles in determining acceptable labels is reconciling how you  
> are at
> the same time describing "mid-range" and "high end" phones while also
> saying that "Almost all phones have key features a consumer is
> interested in." There must be some distinguishing features. "Simple"
> phones (low cost, the basics) and "Staying Connected" phones  
> (messaging,
> wi-fi, etc.) are the only two I can pull out of your message, but  
> there
> are probably some in-between. ...

Yes my blanket statement was ... rather too blanketing :) I do think  
there is promise in going that direction. However, I think it is  
really really hard to get right. For example, if you define a set of  
'simple phones' then the other phones are by implication 'complex  
phones', and that's not a message you want to give. The same goes for  
terms like 'low-end', 'expensive / cheap', and so on. Or you can fall  
into the horrors of fluffy-marketing land with essentially  
meaningless stuff like 'Packed with features at an affordable price'  
and 'versatile yet efficient'.  Not that that kind of copy doesn't  
have its place, but it's not something to build a product selection  
tool with.

> "1000 songs in your pocket" -- I get that because I know what this  
> choice does for me.

It's one of the best pieces of technology marketing ever, imho. How  
to get two features across (capacity and size) in simple words  
everyone can understand. But look your copywriter in the eye and say  
"the IA is based on you being able to write a maximum 10 word product  
description that sums up the key technical features in simple yet  
appealing terms that everyone can understand. And oh, it's got to  
work well in 40+ languages for a company that has a high turnover of  
quite similar products".

> Categorize around what this phone can do for me. Playing with this  
> might
> help you convince people that consumers are having trouble picking  
> among
> the various phones (back to #1).

I love this idea! It has serious legs too I think, in terms of being  
able to make it relate to branding and marketing themes and  
communicating the 'enabling' side of the products. You've given me  
something to ponder over whilst the rest of my family sleeps of Xmas  
dinner.

> 4. On the site itself, one of the features I would be interested in is
> the size of the phone. It is difficult to tell how big the phones are
> from the graphics.

And I love this idea too!

> 3. I am interested in hearing more about how you determined that  
> how the
> phone looks is the primary driver. I would assume that people might  
> use
> this criteria after they have narrowed down their choices to a few  
> that
> appear to be similar.

Research, both qualitative and quantitative. Unfortunately I'm not at  
liberty to give statistics and direct data but suffice to say,  
technical features are surprisingly unimportant for many. Mobile  
phones are ultra-mainstream products, perhaps the most high-tech  
objects that are ubiquitous in the world today (if you buy the line  
that PCs are not truly ubiquitous). I was fortunate to be staying in  
a remote African village at the time a mobile network was installed,  
this was for many there their first encounter with any digital  
technology (or even a telephone of any type...). It was a jaw  
dropping experience to see how they dealt with something like a  
mobile phone for the first time, and see novel patterns of usage  
develop within weeks. It makes you realize how little you can take  
for granted when it comes to assumptions about how people use mobile  
phones.

Olly Wright