[Sigia-l] [IxDA Discuss] User Experience Strategy (prady)

[Troy Winfrey]

prady pradyotrai at gmail.com wrote:

> The other problem is in implying UX strategy is always directly linked
> for innovation for future prospects. This notion assumes that UX
> drives the business strategy. IMHO, it may be a case for Google, Apple
> and few others, but largely UX Strategy is a micro strategy for
> business/marketing/IT strategy.


I'd argue that UX is a significant component of Google's business strategy,
which is to get you to click on ad links. So for most pages, they make sure
you can see the links, know which links are paid and which aren't, etc. But
this is only in service of their overall relevance, which is the real
lifeblood of the company--not only the accuracy of returned results, but the
automated matching of results to an enormous stock of ad inventory. This
relevance is based on technology and processes that, while they don't look
terribly significant, are several generations ahead of the competition's and
increasing that competitive distance at an accelerating rate.
Which goes to make the main point, which is that this field often focuses on
"how it looks," not "how it works." That's essential for working with the
customer, who seldom knows or cares what's underneath the hood. But it may
not be relevant at all to why and how the widgets get sold. To extend the
analogy, we let sixteen-year-olds drive in most U.S. states, even
though very few if any of them understand the mechanics of internal
combustion engines. But this is also why they don't engineer cars.
If you're talking most Old Economy goods--canned fruit, say--chances are
this isn't too big a deal. How it looks and tastes and makes you feel
becomes vital. But if you know how search engines work, you may realize that
Company A has the equivalent of it-came-from-aliens tech in a marketplace
full of late-twentieth century relics (which, by the way, is currently the
case). Insert many a tech product here.