Interaction designers shouldn't just paint.

In October 2011, I had written two articles about interactive design, and it's been two years now. In the meantime, there are a lot of new ideas in my work, communication emerged, coupled with a few weeks ago, I have a new team to share, so I have some experience, so I share some experiences here.

However, this is a personal experience, the horizon is still limited, welcome everyone to Pat Bricks.

I'll talk about terminology again.

When someone is looking at technology and functionality--I think I'll remember the various pages that display in Bling Bling? Web designers are relatively popular and versatile, but later, when the focus needs to look, a lot of "art" emerges. At this time, there is no UCD guiding ideology, and more is TCD (technology-centric), or BCD (guess what? Haha, is the boss as the center).

When the user concept was introduced in the UI age, it also spawned a large number of UI designers and various UI forums, while the guiding ideology was shifting from BCD to UCD. Finally produced UCD guiding ideology, so also the birth of the UCD guiding ideology of a series of organizations, working methods, tools.

Let us thank the foreign pioneers and domestic pioneers who contributed to all this.

Two. Important deliverables of the interaction designer

In past experience, there are three deliverables that are most commonly used.

1. Behavior path-sometimes called page flow, focus on task flow and page flow design, let the user flow smoothly, improve the efficiency of task completion.

2. Information architecture-sometimes called Site Map-focuses on the content structure, navigation system design, making it easy for users to find the information they need. Generally speaking, content-oriented Web sites pay more attention to information architecture design.

3. Single-page interaction design-general use of wireframe, prototype diagram called this part of the delivery, but sometimes not limited to what form, focus on the single page information layout, content priority and interactive details.

Three. Core competencies?

"The core competencies of interactive designers" has been written before, and looking back is a bit of a little less refined.

Someone asked me, Heidi, what qualities and skills do you think are needed to do the interaction? I thought about it, and it seems to be able to express it in four key words.

Acting out, you may have some tools and methods such as axure, such as card sorting, such as usability testing, such as role model building ... or proficient in various theories. But under these, we need to consciously ascend in four ways.

1. Empathy: User-centric, standing in the user's position to think, shouting is easy but difficult to do, sometimes we have to stand on their own position. Empathy is a powerful weapon that allows you to put yourself in a position to consider the user's feelings, habits, and possible mistakes at any time. To train empathy, start with every email you send, and before you write, simulate how your readers read this email? Where do you want them to look first? Notice where? What kind of action? give you a response and then simulate what they see when they look at the mail will be as you wish. It is hard to think in lieu of the user, we naturally can't do exactly like them, but at least we have to have this awareness.

It has to be said that women occupy a little advantage in this respect.

2. Curiosity: Do you like to taste the first time? Do you like to explore new and interesting interactions? There is no doubt that the interaction is a solution that offers a variety of needs, and that the demands you face may be perverse, but most of the requirements may be mature solutions. What you do most of the time is to quickly think of some templates, and then do more optimization on this basis. Instead of redesigning the wheels at all times. Storing as many templates as possible in your mind is a job that requires long-term accumulation but will eventually work. It's not that you innovate, it's more efficient.

Men, it must be said, have a little advantage.

3. Systematization: Many occupations and types of work require systematic thinking. Interaction is particularly needed. I have been working with each other for several years, so that I can feel more comfortable with interacting with the background. @ Summer Eye v good, generally see interactive designers look at two points, one is the ability to solve complex problems, can be under various restrictions to give elegant solutions, one is up and down collaboration communication skills. These two points are really important. When I first entered Ali in 2008, I also wrote an article, "How do interaction designers get results?" It is mentioned in the article that the task of design is to find the best solution to solve the problem, satisfy the expectation or demand, and technically feasible, the higher input-output ratio. Absolutely can not be pure from a very dazzling interactive effect, excellent user experience single dimension to think. The main topic of design Psychology 3 is the complexity of the design, the complexity of the design, the complexity of the input, but the need for a powerful converter to output things that are simple and easy to use.

What is systematization?

Overall rather than local, relevant rather than isolated-the need to see the relevance of demand, the possibility of the need to analyze the requirements-do not need to do, but also may be very large analysis of requirements-found a lot of relevance of the need to solve together, rather than headache medical head. Or the sentence: every thing is connected.

Nature rather than surface-see the need behind demand, ask a few more why, for this? If not, what do you do? What do you do with him?

Interactive designers before entering the design and details, be sure to give yourself some time to think about this thing, "Let me think about", think about the business needs behind, think about what competitors do, think a few solutions ...

4. Persuasion:

Sadly, many times it is not possible to quantify the value of interactions with data. Numbers may lie, but we need it. It is objective, undoubted, seemingly just. It's hard to think of other materials to replace numbers. But the value of interaction is that, sometimes you really can't find a data metric that doesn't interfere with other factors to prove you're doing the right thing (but it's often easy if someone wants to find an indicator that you're doing wrong) ... Alas). The same indicator will be subject to a large number of other factors, the function of the same time release, marketing activities, customer service work ... Wait a minute.

Once I changed difficult to change the first corner of the home page, observation conversion rate data, found that a few percentage points, Zhongdi Mail has not had time to send, the next day but found that fell ... And then a few days later it went up ... Is it good or bad? If you want qualitative research, ask a few people, all feedback good. But what about quantitative data? It depends on whether I'm picking up a time period or a falling time period.

But interaction designers have to be persuasive, and you have to have PD or other resource participants recognize your solution, especially the improved requirements, or the need to invest a lot of resources.

Graphical, professional deliverables, storytelling all seem to be proven effective tools.

I sometimes let the demand side, other people together, seemingly the final solution is to get together, anyway, to achieve the goal.

Four. Bottlenecks?

Well, I was chatting with some of my friends a few days ago and thought that development, PD and interaction were an interesting circle. Usually (does not mean absolutely OH):

Development looks down on PD: Because PD doesn't seem to have any idea but to write a few documents, and usually the developers themselves have ideas ...

PD looks down on ued: because they usually think ued too much mom, too many things, too thin, they simply do not understand how important this thing is to the company ...

Ued and development, they worship each other, for development, ued do things very handsome, and their siege is missing will do things to see people. ued very worship technology, they do any effect, all need to develop the siege master magically realize.

Ued usually self-pity, and ued usually look down on PD ... Because sometimes they think that PD is too commercialized, they don't have faith, and sometimes they think PD is doing their job, isn't that what the bosses are shooting at?

PD sometimes thinks it's impossible to understand how long the ued and the development of the siege Master's brain structure are.

Of course, most of the pairing is very harmonious ...

However, the reason why PD looks down on ued is that we should agree.

In addition to the lack of business awareness, interaction also faces other bottlenecks, such as value quantification and persuasive issues, technology development and vision issues (like me, a period of time does not mix in the interactive circle, once lost vigilance, will find technology has been changing, the current mobile client interaction, response design has put me behind), If you are not continually learning and updating as an interaction, you will soon find solutions that you can come up with, and technology GG already knows that they are even more able to offer better solutions than you.

We must overcome these bottlenecks if we want to do well, and then to do excellence, and continue to pursue professional routes.

Of course, there are other routes to choose from, such as taking management routes.

The other path is to do something with an interactive skill.

Interaction is not a job but a skill, that's my point of view. As shown above, PD is divided into functional PD and business PD, business PD is responsible for the business, planning specific business, the business is likely to do operational activities, but also may need marketing activities, or new teams, or planning a specific system, covering tasks will be broader. and functional PD is the function, the product is responsible for, the scope relative business PD narrow sense many. Usually we say PD is functional? Assuming so, PD goes one step further, can do business PD, take one more step, then do business side completely.

No wonder some people say that PD is to train to become a business leader.

PD can then do product design if it is interested in interacting and able to take in.

And the same, if the interaction goes forward, can also do product designer (both do PD also do design), also can do PD (only do PD, do not design).

My experience proves that while writing PRD, while drawing prototypes, absolute efficiency is more efficient than writing PRD to others to do prototypes or talking to others about PK while writing PRD.

The process of walking naturally has running-in, there is no adaptation, there are more to learn things, but there is definitely a new experience and rising space.