Approximately 24 years after Apple got it with the Macintosh and many of their other products, AdWeek surmises in an article that User Experience is a reflection on the brand, as Viaspire points out. (A manager of mine with one of those fancy MBA titles pointed this out to me in 1998, so I know it’s not some new thing, but back then, User Experience wasn’t a term until Jesse James Garrett could make money off of it).

Well, duh.

Not to further point out the obvious, but whenever a company touches a customer, it’s a reflection on the brand, whether it be through a website, a commercial, or the actual product. Phenominal User Experiences with the correct amount of Marketing bring profitability (read: Apple’s record quarter of Mac Sales, Amazon’s success as a retailer, eBay’s branding as the world’s largest garage sale).

Again, it’s not just a technology thing — the company has to live and breathe it.

It’s all a reflection of the brand.

I’ve worked with my fair share of clients, coming up with something cool or snazy, presenting it to them, they look at it, and the first thing that comes out of their mouth is, “I don’t like it” or “I like this design over here,” pointing at another design produced by another designer. There’s the usual complaint of, “but our design is better” or you mutter something under your breath.

Smashing Magazine has an article on this too, but here’s a few truths to live with:

The clients don’t always pick the best design

The design you are presenting might be something rich and inviting, with all the bells and whistles you throw on there. The other design might be something clean and sharp, but not exciting. Not exciting sells, especially in certain less progressive environments, like governments or large corporations. The stakeholder or final decision maker probably isn’t a designer, so they really can’t tell the difference between rich and not rich, just what they like or don’t like. Some of the sites I’ve designed I hate, but the client loved, because it hit their target audience.

The clients are influenced by a local designer

There’s nothing like being there in person when showing off a design, and if you can’t do this, you’re already at a disadvantage — you can’t discuss some of your motivations for doing a particular design, or taking a particular angle. Sometimes you are set up to fail from the very start, and it’s best to recognize it and put your best foot forward, even if you know you aren’t going to be the winning design.

Sometimes the best design isn’t the most usable design

When I was working at Escrow.com, eBay was one of our partners. We redesigned the user interface of the site, and on every iteration, we made it look more like eBay. On every iteration, revenue increased. As much as the user interface designer I worked with hated it, we had to keep going that way. Many users might consider eBay one of the ugliest sites on the web, but when revenue rises, you keep going that direction. If you don’t, you are ignoring your users. Follow the obvious roadsigns.

Design is subjective

Totally true, but the best argument I’ve set for some of the clients is, “let’s try some A/B testing.” If it’s a simple website, and the site gets a fair amount of traffic, you’ll know quickly which design works better. Changing the colors of certain buttons in a design can affect the conversion rate. As much as you would like to tell the stakeholder they aren’t the audience, sometimes it’s best to do just that by involing end users.

Once upon a time, I worked for an internet postage company. Seems like ions ago, but it’s core product was a Windows application that allowed the user to print postage (think of it, the equivalent of actual money!) from your computer. Due to the USPS’ requirements, the security for the client was off the charts — even higher than 128-bit encryption.

We actually tried to do the impossible, which was print from a web-based client, and we got it to work. It’s wasn’t production level code, but with a few tweeks here or there, we could have hit that mark. There was no indication if we were going to be allowed to release that client, but the usability wasn’t too bad, especially for skunkworks project.

Soon after that experiment, the company purchased another company that developed a shipping client for shipping centers. It was pretty advanced for it’s time: it did all the AJAX stuff beform Jesse James Garrett got rich off of coining the term AJAX. Other than a few glitches, it seemed to work pretty well.

Except it didn’t.

When you visited the clients that used the application, they hated it, and here’s why:

• It was slow
• Performed poorly over DSL
• Was a bloated mess and a fragile application.
• The web client worked only on Internet Explorer 5.0, and as soon as 5.5 was installed, the application broke.

So what are the lessons? I always thought the internet postage client should have been a web application, and conversely the shipping application should have been native to Windows, because almost every one of these locations had a Windows system. As much as I keep repeating that the web is a fad, I think it depends on the following on what you select to be the platform to develop on:

Who’s the audience?

The needs of a bunch of workers telemarketing day in and day out are much different than a sales guy that’s going to make 10 sales calls a day. The telemarketers are going to want hot keys, they definitely don’t want to use a mouse, the latency means less phone calls, which means less money in their pocket. That’s usability that costs the company in revenue, so they’re going to want a rich or native application. The sales guy making those 10 calls doesn’t mind taking a minute or two longer to futz over a dial up connection or a slow DSL connection, so a web application is just fine. It’s the difference between a casual vs. an expert user.

What’s their platform?

Take a good look at the audience’s technology before you select the platform. Is the audience has a bunch of different platforms and technologies they are working with, that’s an easy answer — go with a web application. If they are on fast connections, look at Flash. If they are on a single platform (Windows, for instance), a native application isn’t a bad idea.

How fast is their connection?

Native applications, once installed, don’t have to be downloaded again. Rich media applications have to be downloaded through a web browser, usually in one chunk. Web applications have latency depending on the connection. Which would you rather be using while working in Alaska, depending on how much data you have to push around?

How often does this need to be updated?

There are advantages, of course, to a web-based application, because you don’t have to worry about backwards compatibility, a code base that’s branched all to hell, and 18 different flavors of windows. If you are going to update the application every day, a native or even a rich media application might not be the way to go. However, if there are long cycles between updates, and there’s a way to push the updates cleanly, then a native application is okay.

All of the above should be considered even before selecting a development platform, because each affects usuability. It’s about the appropriate technology for the appropriate audience, something developers forget.

With some of the people I work with, they think I come up with some of the designs and user interface components out of thin air. What I really do is look for patterns and best practices at other websites, and use them over and over again i.e. design patterns.

Smashing Magazine has a great (but lengthy) article about a topic dear to me — web forms. Web forms are the most important aspect of what we do because they usually lead to conversions, yet we spend so little time on designing them.

Never mind that Firefox 3, the new browser, is so fast it runs circles around Internet Explorer 7 and Safari for the Mac (this after a long time of bloatware with Firefox 2), their website is the best I’ve ever seen at identifying exactly at getting people to download the browser. The navigation of the site has always been phenomenal (is there anything more straight forward than add-ins?), and this release, it just gets better.

The wins?

Detect who the user is in a hurry

Am I a Mac or a PC person?

No problem!

We’ll just look at the user agent provided by the browser and server, and we’ll detect the language and operating system. No choosing, just a small note that tells the user exactly who they are. This is a detail most websites completely miss (how many times do I have to see PC Software listed when I access Download.com?).

At the bottom of the page there’s content comparing Firefox vs. Safari, the native browser for the Mac I’m on. Brilliant!

How much does this cost?

It’s free! And they tell you it’s free! Download now! Operators standing by!

But what if I have the wrong language selected?

I would have listed some of the languages here (how many Japanese people will be able to translate Other Systems and Languages if their browser is set wrong?), but for the most part, selecting another platform or language is straight forward. The secondary page does it a great job listing the languages, but a poor job of translating the word “Download” into each language. Was someone, anyone paying attention?

If it’s an absolute requirement, it should be spelled out in plain language

So some of you have probably been following my misadventures with United Airlines. After a few calls, they were awesome at correcting a airline ticket where I didn’t include the full name of the passenger (she has an Anglicized name that also appears with her Chinese name on her passport), and I didn’t find out until later that I needed to include the full name.

Not to throw just United Airlines under the bus (pun intended), but most of the other sites didn’t point out the the following requirement: that whatever name was listed, it should be exactly the name on any identification. This isn’t necessarily the airlines’ fault — all of the airlines are following guidelines set forth after 9/11.

The issue for some of the sites is that this requirement isn’t obvious enough: if someone like me, who never reads the text on a site, misses this, I can’t imagine how many others have fallen prey. And with the frustration over customer service and airlines in general, passing the buck of the travel sites with the airline companies has become almost sport.

Here are a few screen shots from my favorite airlines:

Southwest Airlines

No indication.

American Airlines

Does indicate, but in legalspeak.

Delta Airlines

No indication, but does have an indication that you can refund the flight if there are changes within 24 hours of booking further down the page.

Orbitz

Perfect. Someone at the other sites needs to copy this exactly. An additional improvement would be to add a link to the polices for changing flights. They should have additional text that reads something to the effect “even in the event of a mispelling.”

Other Travel Sites

Expedia does cover this under the rules and restrictions, and on the screen where you have to enter a traveler, but not next to the text entry area (and the rule is actually covered up by a popup window. Travelocity is much like Orbitz, where the explaination text is right next to entering the name.

Where’s The Search Box?

Hulu’s a pretty good site — lots of video from companies that want some kind of control over the content, which is much more than YouTube is giving them. The site’s is version 1.0, so the interface feels a bit clunky. Most importantly, where’s the search box?

I made the screen capture small without a highlight for the primary reason that if you are on a content-heavy site, that search box better be easy to find. Like Google easy to find. Like YouTube easy to find. Like News.com easy to find.

Can you find it?

I travel a bit for a work and for goofing off, and hate paying too much for airline travel. I also want my choice of times and flights.

Enter Kayak. One of the best examples of Web 2.0 design, it’s simple, offers my options to change my search on the fly, and it’s fast. I love the site. I don’t know how they make their money, because sometimes I book somewhere else, but whatever they are doing, keep it up.

I joined a gym, and did it online. I like the 24 Hour Fitness site because I was able to join online and not deal with any pesky salespeople trying to sell me a plan I didn’t want, and it was a fairly easy process to join. I need notice a couple of items I would change if I were in charge of their website:

Personalization

I came in as a member, and those links showed up. They should be replaced with links that are appropriate to me as an audience. Off that page, I would also make getting to the online store more obvious.

Non-Standard Credit Card And Information Forms

This is the join form, but this also appears in the credit card form — the form required you to enter your month (May, November, September) instead of selecting it from a drop down menu or entering a number. It might seem clever, but every other form of this type I’ve seen has been entering a date as numbers and not as a text item.

You have to really do things people expect, and this is outside the lines. If 80 percent of the forms out there require thing, there better be a really good reason to do it different, and there really isn’t a good reason to do it different here. I wonder: did they do any usability testing?

One note: If you are designing forms for an international audience, the format of the date for most countries is day, month, and year.

Good Product Manager has a good article about delivering customer value versus delivering a lot of features.

I’m going to go one further: sometimes it’s about a lot of small features instead of doing one large feature.

Example: when I was working at Escrow.com, the application was receiving a lot of bad reviews by the users, and the customer service department was working 20 or so overtime hours a week. I did an analysis of the customer service emails, and found that a full 20 percent of the emails and calls were related to the URLs in the emails — they were too long. All we had to do was design shorter URLs.

Two days of work by the developer, and in three weeks, the overtime was gone.

Over the next few months, we did a lot of small changes, like rewriting the customer service emails, making small improvements in the application, making small user interface tweaks. None of them took more than a couple of days, but over the long haul, we saw month to month improvements in both conversion rates and revenue generated. The return customers doubled, because they found the site to be easier to use.

This was all done without spending any marketing dollars.

We did do a redesign four months later, but the design was based on the small changes and user feedback collected from emails and focus groups selected from our more frequent users. They told us to make small changes, because it was the details that made it a better user experience.

Think small, then big. If you have to think big, there should be a big reason to justify it.

What are your success stories?