How to quickly find the interactive design of the problem

When we have no data, no time to understand the specific situation, no extra energy and money to do various tests, in the conceptual phase to verify their ideas, how to use the fastest way to find the problem of the design and kill him in the cradle? The next content should be helpful to you.

Before I write the text, I hope you can understand that bad design is caused by a variety of reasons, I write this article is to explore how to quickly identify bad design, and avoid such a design occurred to themselves. But sometimes you know it's a bad design but it happens to you--you know why. Here's the point:

I took the example of this site is relatively well-known Granville guest site, is the release of task-task site. This is my first time to go to this website. Let me describe how I felt at the time. It's a very useful way to imagine who you are and then start to think about what you're going through, and of course more formal role analysis--creating a virtual user role:

A feature that looks like a search

First of all, when I open this page, the first reaction is Taobao, because the UI is very similar. Add the category navigation to the left and the picture in the center of the page that contains almost no information. I couldn't figure out what the site was for a while.

Then, when I want to do something, I found the top right corner of the big search box, the text in the search box I do not understand what is to say, why the search on the right is called publishing content? So I searched for a 2 keyword combination: "program design." Click to publish the task, look forward to the search results ...

Click the button to jump to a task submit form

The result of the content was unexpected, it was to bring my input into the title of the post of the input box. My first reaction was that the design was too bad. Note that when you feel this way, you may have designed a problem, but it is only possible.

After analyzing and thinking, I thought the design was really problematic, but when I was so sure my first reaction was to ask people. Because I often say: "We often think that other people are idiots, in fact, we are not the idiot," so I generally assume that the design is subtle and not be found by me. At the same time because I do not have enough knowledge of the site, there must be a lot of places to consider the less thoughtful place. When I ask an insider about this product, I can make sure that my guesses are generally correct.

I take the main point of this design I think there are problems to elaborate.

After my analysis, I have come to the conclusion that:

1, this design does not have any benefit, including cannot reduce the user to operate

2, such a design is bad, will cause ambiguity (for example, I understand the search) and the confusion of mind (what exactly is used to do).

Don't think this conclusion is nonsense, because the current user experience of the promotion is mainly focused on 2 (other aspects, such as response speed, interface aesthetics and other parts are more obvious, the solution is relatively easy to evaluate)

1, in line with the user's psychological expectations-is very popular that the sentence: don ' t make me think (don't let the user thinking)

2, reduce user operation

Although for different groups of the weight of these two is not the same (now we all pay attention to the first, mainly the book harm), but this design is not in line with the user's psychological expectations, but also can not reduce user operations so there must be a problem.

The length of the relationship, I will step through the next part of the detailed analysis of the process and the reasons why I came to these conclusions

A happy and sad news: I said the problem of the Web site has been revised. Happy is the problem solved, one less obvious mistake; Sadly, I haven't finished writing him yet, but I'm going to have to finish this.

The first step in finding an interactive design that is problematic is to calculate the number of times this task has been completed (mostly clicks ). Because this is the simplest judgment, you just have to count it. If you find that you reduce the number of clicks that users have, it's a good design as long as it doesn't affect the user's understanding. Conversely, if you increase the number of clicks on the user, the premise must be the previous design is prone to misunderstanding, otherwise this is a bad design

A feature that looks like a search

Click the button to jump to a task submit form

So we're going to count the numbers first:

Current Solution: input task → click button (jump page) → supplemental content → click button

General scheme: Click on the button (jump page) → input task + supplemental content → click button

It can be seen that there is no optimization on the simple click.

Then proceed to step two: speculate whether the design is helpful to the user's understanding.

Generally split the form into multiple pages is out of the guide or the form content too much, reduce the user's psychological burden. A total of 5 data, so there is no alleviation of the user's psychological burden of the role. So most of it is the guiding role.

So is this design going to lead the user?

First of all, this design violates the common form in appearance, but imitates the look of the search engine. If you want to design this, first of all, you should add descriptive text in front of the input box so that it can be separated from the search engine area as much as possible.

Second, the description of the changes in the text is misleading "such as: Brand logo design"; "For example: Find resources, find talent." Is this a hint of what I'm typing in the input box? "For example" two words make me feel that the text behind is like an example. is let me direct input to find resources, find talent?

In the end, no matter how many words you have, it is far less effective in a form because any element on the page will be the basis of our guess. I believe that the following figure, I do not say anything, you can also guess what the two boxes are respectively. Therefore, all the elements on the page can play a role in interpreting each other. They don't exist on their own.

Guess what these two boxes are all about? I'm sure you'll guess.

Sometimes we really need to guide, the guiding principle should be: the simplest operation to attract users to pay the greatest price to enter the next step . This filling task name obviously does not conform to the simplest operation of this standard, so it is not to be used as a guide.

You can try this method, you should be able to filter a lot of obvious error design. Using this method to compare the design is worth using a variety of methods to test, reference to various data, to spend time to study.

This is the latest program of the Granville Guest website

Also say the website now this plan, "I have the demand" is nonsense, might as well add a sentence: Millions of professionals to help you complete the task-the most afraid of publishing tasks is no one to do, this sentence is to eliminate the concern of the people who publish the task, encouraging users to click. Of course, theoretically all programs can be continuously improved, find the problem is easy, to the program difficult . So all my comments will give me an alternative that I personally think is better.