To learn the priority judgment and scheduling synergy of interactive design

In the dense demand bombing (the demand itself has a certain rationality, not including that should not be rejected by the demand), while there are a lot of spontaneous drive to do things, interaction designers how to make reasonable design priority judgment, decomposition demand scheduling push it? See today's actual combat experience!

In previous projects, I usually complete a design requirements of the review delivery, then to follow up on the next demand, and in a relatively free time period to do the system's product experience analysis, ideas to optimize the point of the product design, design components and specifications, parallel response > 3 requirements ( Small requirements that do not include daily iterations) are rare.

But a few weeks ago, PD in the project team pulled up the design and development in two days, at the end of the review, 5 Prd, I have no attention to listen to the mood, but into a deep distress and boredom: on the one hand, the feeling of intense demand bombing before the lack of weakness, energy difficult to concentrate ( I'm the kind of person who likes to focus on doing one thing and other things, and on the other hand, it's because the whole refactoring plan for the Web information architecture that was previously driven by spontaneity has been postponed and it feels like it's back to the demand.

But with the help of my seniors and PD, I've developed a clear prioritization and scheduling plan for this big wave of intensive demand, in the case of no overtime, the more orderly output of 3 of these requirements of the specific design solutions, even in the basis of the PD demand also completed more relevant product link design, The single page improvement is promoted into the overall optimization of workflow in the relevant complete scenario. Priorities and scheduling seem to be the lead of PD, but interaction designers should also focus on this, rather than getting themselves into passive overtime to cope with irrational demands, or to work overtime for a group of small partners.

In the dense demand bombing (the demand itself has a certain rationality, not including that should not be rejected by the demand), while there are a lot of spontaneous drive to do things, interaction designers how to make reasonable design priority judgment, decomposition demand scheduling push it?

　　Cross parallel, with project team member progress

In our Product 2.0 plan for this wave of demand (with PD proposed, there are also designers want to spontaneously improve, there is the importance of understanding the interactive operation of the design, there is a simple interface but involves business logic complex, high cost of development process design, there is a weak visual demand, interaction and even products directly Cover background design, there is a heavy emotional impact of interaction, Designers need to actively think about the exploration of the cross-PC, mobile platform innovation design, but also has the most extensive impact on the entire network of the overall reconfiguration ...

In the face of these requirements for different workloads, if you follow the traditional waterfall "prd/user research – Interactive design – visual design – The back-and-forth development "process completes the demand delivery, and when the previous function takes more time to consider the solution, the latter function will become idle over that time and may then become exhausted." (For example, if I do a creative design that takes longer to think and design time, spend a week and a half of time, this time behind my vision and development resources will be idle, and so I delivered this page, in less than two days to finish a process design, for the development of the need before the start, Another one. A higher cost of development, the pressure will become much more

According to the recommendations of the seniors and PD, and the scheduling estimates given by the developers, as the overall deadline has been set, some of the requirements of the business priority similar to the premise, I choose to invest in a number of priority development/attention, and the interactive output cycle relatively short demand, so that visual/development can be involved at an earlier time, Rather than wait until close to deadline body weakness; At the same time, with the Institute to start on the overall restructuring of such plans for the early user research and verification, and I in this relatively long period of time to complete those obvious to help achieve business objectives, to meet the needs of users of the design, and so on with the results of the research, Follow up on designs that have a larger impact, risk and uncertainty (which can trigger a strong rebound). This kind of function crosses the parallel the advancement way, may the everybody's pressure more reasonable evenly decomposition, but does not have in one place "the concentrated blockage".

　　High priority fast packaging end low cost, short period of demand

When defining the business priorities for each requirement, PD divides A requirements into P0, while BCD requirements are P1 and business priorities are higher, but in practice, I started with the BCD design, which is relatively inexpensive, design and partial development scheduling is relatively short.

For the project team, as mentioned in the previous section, the rapid completion of some of the requirements of the design, can allow the entire project team resources at an earlier time to have input, and better spread the pressure. For interaction designers, multiple short cycle requirements are first parallel, in a need to enter the first draft output-Multiple confirmation completed (in large companies, many times the time to communicate and confirm the modification of the cost is sometimes much larger than the design itself, there is a period of time can not find people can not confirm the plan and not convenient to continue to do the design) In a blank period, you can just do the same with another demand, in the end, the package delivery is reviewed almost at the same time, and the rapid completion of these short cycle requirements, which are not low priority, can focus on the higher cost, longer cycle, and more autonomous drive of the design thinking, Rather than being distracted by repeated distractions when performing the latter (it is important for me to be able to concentrate on things when I hate distractions).

　　Treat global refactoring with caution, fully validate and execute

Just been Prd bombing, I once for their long gestation of the global information architecture, one page overall reconfiguration optimization plan was temporarily stranded and uncomfortable, also considered the new business product requirements into this big plan overall consideration.

But it's not realistic in the product cycle, the big plan is likely to be a radical experience improvement from the user Experience designer's perspective, allowing the information architecture and functional processes to be streamlined and optimized, but radical changes can also easily make users feel overwhelmed by inherent cognitive practices and trigger a strong user backlash. And our products are missing a reasonable data buried point, can not be intuitive to a certain number of data indicators to determine the success or failure of the revision, if there are a large number of voices against the user to jump out, also do not have a reasonable data argument to support their views.

The

is based on this risk of being predefined, senior advised me to be cautious about the global information refactoring, and so on with a professional research output, fully verify the idea of formal intervention after the plan, rather than casually summed up some experience is not good (from a professional point of view these pain points may exist objectively, But the lack of sufficient user research feedback as an argument is starting to be a fuss; and another suggestion to postpone the follow-up of the overall restructuring is the "first dish and then set up the disk",2.0 a lot of requirements module, the first of these modules involved in the separate page decomposition design complete, and then unified consider the integration of the information architecture of the portal, If you want to be integrated in the beginning, it is easy to fall into a long period of time will not result in the output of the situation, in the middle of the direction such as uncontrolled changes will spread to a wider range, need to return to a higher price to revise.