From the fertile mind of Steve Tengler, Altia’s Director of User Experience
… “Here are the three companies that are great examples of designing for user experience.”
The first is Disney. I just took my family to Disneyworld in February. For the 3,058 times my youngest had to use the restroom, I was never able to – on my own – find the nearest location despite Epcot’s colorful, detailed map. ‘Excuse me’, I waved at a man named Jeffery, who was the Disney employee cheerfully manning the Disney Vacation Packages booth nearby. ‘Where’s the little boy’s room?’
His genuine perma-smile widened slightly to say, ‘Right around the corner – behind those palm trees. Sorry that it’s a little confusing. I get asked that all the time.’
‘OK, thanks!’ I replied. The engineer in me, however, couldn’t let that go, and so I turned to Jeffery while shepherding my son onward and inquired, ‘Why don’t they put a sign here then?’
‘Because Disney WANTS us to interact with you. Enjoy your day!!’
How counter to the normal business process this was! Most corporations create interfaces to maximize self-reliance and, therein, decrease labor costs. Labor, especially domestic labor, is exponentially more expensive than even a graphical, animated sign. Disney, however, prioritized the user’s experience by DECREASING the efficiency of the user interface.
But they don’t just control experiences with sporadic employees. For extended lines prior to rides, they have interactive displays and screens to enhance each situation. For example, one interactive comedy show was preceded by a large holding area where Disney guests would wait en masse until opening the doors opened for the next show. During the wait, they played an animated video and requested audience members to submit jokes via text message. Another ride’s queue winds through a whole quasi-museum dedicated to the Yeti with display cabinets containing interesting artifacts and history. No, they can’t keep Florida from getting hot. They certainly can’t keep your children from getting tired. But they have made a concerted effort to consider use cases and mold them to their advantage.
A slightly different and more disfunctional paradigm is at work in the automotive industry where there are multiple ways to contact call centers (BMW – 4; OnStar 2+) but no clear understanding with consumers as to which button to hit when. So now users are simply using their smartphones to get the information they need. Telematics systems ought to be designed to TELL the driver what to do or light up the buttons that ought to be pushed. Instead, the confusion is opening the door to Apple, RIM or Google to provide the kind of support the call center is intended to provide. Help us Altia!
Roger — Not to reveal too much, but you mentioned two of companies to soon be highlighted (“Have you somehow read ahead?!”). The dysfunctional paradigm of which you speak in the auto industry has to do with its heritage, and requires a shift that’s just begun: instead of creating a paper specification years in advance to delineate a component’s qualities, they must create a flexible architecture, an electronic/interactive spec (in a tool like … hmmm … Altia), and have that generate production code when required for the supplier. Make that downloadable akin to smart phone app’s, and you’ve caught up to the consumer electronics world. OnStar’s focus on user experience is not the issue (*quite the contrary); the inflexibility of the SYSTEM is the issue.