
The Psychology of UX - acconrad
http://www.methodsandtools.com/archive/archive.php?id=126
======
vacri
_People Don 't Want to Work or Think More Than They Have To_

A great list, but the first point reminded me of my favourite support story.
The application was a medical analysis tool, and there was a pre-analysis
algorithm that could be run over a study to assist a human then scoring it.

A user called up with an issue that could only be one of two things - she'd
gotten an error box when she'd tried to run the automatic analysis. There are
only two errors at that point, and the text in the box tells me which fix to
apply. Unfortunately she'd decided that the error box was due to a corrupt
file.

"Please read out the message in the error box" => "The file is corrupted"

"Can you please read out the exact text in the error box?" => "It says 'the
file is corrupted'"

"I haven't seen that message before, can you please read it out word by word?"
=> "The. File. Is. Corrupted."

"Okay, I haven't seen that error before, can you please read it out character
by character, so I can go to the developers with the exact wording" => "T-h-e
a-u-t-o-m-a...." (the start of the sentence "the automatic analysis settings
have not been enabled", the solution for which is ticking a box)

This user had called asking for assistance and still refused to read the
literal words in front of her until I got down to the character-by-character
readback...

------
kagamine
Let's all remember that UX (& IxD!) should be based on research and testing,
not on assumed patterns.

The statement that "Make your website more scannable by using less text and
adding more imagery (as humans are 90% visual creatures)" sounds as much like
dumbing-down as anything I have ever heard, resulting in useless pages that I
don't need. In fact at [http://uxmyths.com/](http://uxmyths.com/) myths 4, 7 &
8 counter this idea of more visual being better. The mantra I like more is
"content is king". Think man pages. Although a specific use case, man pages
benefit from concise, precise information, and pictures would be a detriment.
Same goes for most news articles.

Similarly with error messages, the article uses specific errors to make a case
and then uses Skype's login to illustrate the "right way". These are two very
different use-case shapes being forced into a square hole. As many of us here
should know, there is nothing worse than a fuzzy, warm error message that
can't be searched online or in documentation. Sure, errors should not be
"error: 0x15654213!" but should include enough information for the user to
_solve the problem_ (and please do not use exclamation marks in errors!).
Often, some technical info, even if just an error code and a short description
are enough to resolve the issue. If you can't log in, as in the Skype example,
well, it's one of two things 99% of the time. You probably don't need to
google that.

I like the rest of what the author has to say, especially that part about
developers getting to do it over and over while UX is expected to be right
first time (assuming the place you work actually does UX, mine doesn't and the
results vary greatly). My workplace doesn't test either which I think is a
huge mistake (so much so I almost couldn't write this sentence without
swearing). That's something I am trying to change.

~~~
paulojreis
> My workplace doesn't test either which I think is a huge mistake (so much so
> I almost couldn't write this sentence without swearing). That's something I
> am trying to change.

This is the biggest problem, I think - the conception of UX without "user"
work.

This doesn't mean only testing per se, but any kind of empirical or data
collection work (from using anthropological methods early to strict usability
testing). If a given company is not doing any of this, then they're not doing
UX at all. If they're not in contact with the user in any way, then it's not
UX.

Having someone creating UIs in Photoshop is not UX and this is, I think, the
biggest and most detrimental misconception of the field.

------
jchendy
For people who want to keep learning about this stuff, this book has some
similar information in easily-digestible chunks:
[http://www.amazon.com/Things-Designer-People-Voices-
Matter/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Things-Designer-People-Voices-
Matter/dp/0321767535)

~~~
currysausage
Great book indeed. Not quite as easily-digestible, but also very relevant and
still well-readable: Jeff Johnson's _Designing with the Mind in Mind_ [1],
unemotionally explaining the psychological principles behind common HCI
guidelines.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/dp/0124079148](http://www.amazon.com/dp/0124079148)

------
outworlder
> The way the prefrontal lobe works is that it can only process one thing at a
> time, but it can switch between two tasks very rapidly.

Citation needed? If true, that would be a nice parallel to modern operating
systems and processors.

~~~
sogen
"While the time spent in the role activation stage may be minimal, it quickly
adds up when you continually switch back and forth. And once you switch from
one task to another, _it takes an average of 23 minutes and 15 seconds to get
back to the original task._ "

[https://blog.todoist.com/2014/05/13/how-multitasking-
slows-y...](https://blog.todoist.com/2014/05/13/how-multitasking-slows-your-
brain-and-kills-your-productivity/)

------
dccoolgai
Nice breakdown - I love Weinschenk's work. I would highly recommend "100
Things Every Designer Needs to Know About People".

------
PointerReaper
I wish they would have better explored "2\. People Have Limitations" via
mental models and not been biased by "(as humans are 90% visual creatures)."
Designing for and separating visuals from content can strengthen not only the
user experience, but make accessibility elegant, instead of simply possible.

------
patkai
Lots of food for thought. A more practical approach is this list/listing tool:
[http://userium.com](http://userium.com) because that has stuff translated to
practical terms.

------
rrrx3
Great article, thanks for sharing.

