{"rowid": 197, "title": "Designing for Mobile Performance", "contents": "Last year, some colleagues at Google ran a research study titled \u201cThe Need for Mobile Speed\u201d to find out what the impact of performance and perception of speed had on the way people use the web on their mobile devices. \nThat\u2019s not a trivial distinction; when considering performance, how fast something feels is often more important than how fast it actually is. When dealing with sometimes underpowered mobile devices and slow mobile networks, designing experiences that feel fast is exceptionally important.\nOne of the most startling numbers we found in the study was that 53% of mobile site visits are abandoned if pages take longer than 3 seconds to load.\nWe wanted to find out more, so following on from this study, we conducted research to define what the crucial elements of speed are. We took into consideration the user experience (UX), overall perception of speed, and how differing contexts the user finds themselves in can alter how fast a user thinks something loaded.\nTo understand speed and load times first we must understand that user mobile web behaviour is broken down into three buckets;\n\nIntention\nLocation\nState of mind\n\nLet\u2019s look at each of those in turn.\nIntention\nUsers browse sites on a mobile device for many different reasons. To be able to effectively design a performant user experience for them, it\u2019s important to understand what those reasons might be. When asked to describe their reason for visiting a site, approximately 30% of people asked by the study claimed that they were simply browsing without a particular purpose in mind. Looking deeper, we found that this number increased slightly (34%) for retail sites. 30% said they were just there to find out some information for a future task or action, such as booking a flight.\nInterestingly, the research shows that users are actually window shopping using their mobile browser. Only 29% actually said they had a specific goal or intent in mind, and this number increases significantly for financial services like banking sites (57%). This goes against a traditionally held view of users wanting to perform simple actions efficiently on their mobile device. Sure, some users are absolutely doing that, but many are just browsing around without a goal in mind, just like they would on a desktop browser.\nThis gives great insight into the user\u2019s intentions. It tells us that users are actively using sites on their mobile, but a large majority do not intend to do anything instantly. There\u2019s no goal they\u2019re under pressure to achieve. If a site\u2019s performance is lousy or janky, this will only reaffirm to the user to that they can hold off on completing a task, so they might just give up. \nHowever, if a site is quick to load, sophisticated in expressing its value proposition quickly, and enables the user to perform their actions seamlessly, then turning that \u201cbrowsing user\u201d into a \u201cbuying user\u201d becomes all that much easier. When the user has no goal, there\u2019s more opportunity to convert, and you stand a greater chance of doing that if the performance is good enough so they stick around.\nLocation\nObviously, mobile devices by their nature can be used in many different locations. This is an interesting consideration, because it\u2019s not something we traditionally need to take into account designing experiences for static platforms like desktop computers.\nThe in the study, we found that 82% of users browse the web on their mobile phone while in their home. In contrast, only 7% do the same while at work. This might come across as a bit of a shock, but when you look at mobile usage \u2013 in particular app usage \u2013 most of the apps being used are either a social network or some sort of entertainment or media app. Due to the unreliability of network connections, users will often alternate between these two types of apps.\nThe consequence being that if a site doesn\u2019t work offline, or otherwise compensate for bad network connectivity in some way by providing opportunities to allow users to browse their site, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as to why users mostly view the mobile web from the comfort of their homes where there is a strong WiFi connection. They\u2019re using mobile devices, but they\u2019re not actually mobile themselves.\nAnother thing to bear in mind is how users alternate between devices, a study by comScore found that 80% of transactions take place on desktop while 69% of the browsing takes place on mobile. Any given user might access from more than one location - they might visit one day from a bus queue on their phone, and then next day from a laptop at home.\nState of mind\nOne more thing we need to take into consideration is the user\u2019s state of mind. Whilst browsing at home, users tend to be more relaxed, and in the research 76% stated they were generally calmer at home. The user\u2019s state of mind can have quite a big impact on how they perceive things. The calmer they are, the quicker a site might appear to load. If the user is anxious and impatiently drumming their fingers on the table, things seem to take longer, and even a small wait can feel like an eternity.\nThis is quite key. Over 40% of sites take longer than 4 seconds to load for users who are are out and about and using a mobile data connection. Coupled with our perception, and amplified by a potentially less-than-calm state of mind, this can seem like an age.\nWhat does this all mean?\nI think we can all agree that users prefer strong, steady connections and comfort when completing transactions. It seems like common sense when we say it out loud. Recreating these feelings and sensations of comfort and predictability under all circumstances therefore becomes paramount. Equally, when asked in the study, users all claimed that speed was the most important factor impacting their mobile web usage. Over 40%, in fact, said it was the most important UX feature of a site, and nobody asked considered it to be of no importance at all.\n\nThe meaning of speed\nWhen it comes to performance, speed is measured in two ways \u2013 real speed; as measured on a clock, and perceived speed; how responsive an interaction feels.  We can, of course, improve how quickly a site loads by simply making files smaller. Even then, the study showed that 32% of users felt a site can feel slow even when it loads in less than 4 seconds. This gets even worse when you look at it by age group, with 50% if young people (18-24 year olds) thinking a site was slower than it actually was. When you add to the mix that users think a site loaded faster when they are sitting compared to when they are standing up, then you are in a world of trouble if your site doesn\u2019t have any clear indicators to let the user know the loading state of you website or app.\nSo what can we do about this to improve our designs?\nHow to fix / hack user perception\nThere are some golden rules of speed, the first thing is hacking response time. If a page takes more than 3 seconds to load, you will certainly start to lose your users. However, if that slowness is part of a UX flow such as processing information, the user understands it might take a little time. Under those circumstances, a load time of under 5 seconds is acceptable, but even then, you should take caution. Anything above 8 seconds and you are in very real danger of losing your audience completely.  \n\n\n\nLoad time\nUser impression\n\n\n\n\n200 ms\nFeels instant\n\n\n1 s\nFeels it is performing smoothly\n\n\n5 s\nPart of user flow\n\n\n8 s\nLose attention\n\n\n\nRemove the tap delay\nMobile browsers often use a 300-350ms delay between the triggering of the touchend and click events. This delay was added so the browser could determine if there was going to be a double-tap triggered or not, since double-tap is a common gesture used to zoom into text. This delay can have the side effect of making interactions feel laggy, and therefore giving the user the impression that the site is slow, even if it\u2019s their own browser causing the problem.\nFortunately there\u2019s a way to remove the delay. Add following in the <head> of your page, and the delay no longer takes effect:\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width\">\nYou can also use touch-action: manipulation in newer browsers to eliminate click delay. For old browsers, FastClick by FT Labs uses touch events to trigger clicks faster and remove the double-tap gesture.\nMake use of Skeleton Screens\nA skeleton layout is a wireframe version of your app that displays while content is being loaded. This demonstrates to the user that content is about to be loaded, giving the impression that something is happening more quickly than it really is. Consider also using a preloader UI as well, with a text label informing the user that the app is loading. One example would be to pulsate the wireframe content giving the app the feeling that it is alive and loading. This reassures the user that something is happening and helps prevent resubmissions or refreshes of your app. Razvan Caliman created a Codepen example of how to create this effect in purely CSS. \nOne thing to consider though, if data doesn\u2019t load then you might need to create a fallback 404 or error page to let the user know what happened.  \n\nExample by Owen-Campbell Moore\nResponsive Touch Feedback\nCarefully designing the process by which items load is one aspect of increasing the perceived speed of your page, but reassuring the user that an action they have taken is in process is another. At Google we use something called a Ripple, which is is animating dot that expands or ripples in order to confirm to the user that their input has been triggered. This happens immediately, expanding outward from the point of touch. This reaffirms to the user that their input has been received and is being acted on, even before the site has had a chance to process or respond to the action. From the user\u2019s point of view, they\u2019ve tapped and the page has responded immediately, so it feels really quick and satisfying.\nYou can mimic this same behavior using our Material Design Components Web GitHub repo.\n\nProgress bars\nThese UI elements have existed for a very long time, but research conducted by Chris Harrison and published in New Scientist found that the style of a progress bar can alter the perception of speed drastically. As a matter of fact, progress bars with ripples that animate towards the left appear like they are loading faster by at least 11% percent. So when including them in your site, take into consideration that ripples and progress bars that pulsate faster as they get to the end will make your sites seem quicker.\n\n    \n  \n  Faster Progress Bars: Manipulating Perceived Duration with Visual Augmentations\nNavigation\nThe speed with which a user can locate navigational items or call to actions adds to their perceived performance of a site. If the user\u2019s next action is quick to spot on the screen, they don\u2019t spend time hunting around the interface with their eyes and fingers. So no matter how quickly your code runs, hiding items behind a nav bar will make a site feel slower than it actually is. \nFacebook found that switching to using bottom navigation saw an increase in engagement, satisfaction, revenue, speed, and importantly, perception of speed. If the user sees the navigation items they\u2019re looking for quickly, the interaction feels fast. What\u2019s more, end-to-end task completion is quicker too, as the interface not only feels quicker, but actually measures quicker as well. Similar reactions were found with Spotify and Redbooth.\nLuke Wroblewski gave a talk last year in Ireland titled \u201cObvious Always Wins\u201d which he demonstrated through the work he did with Google+. Luke\u2019s message is that by making the core features of your app obvious to your user, you will see engagement go up. This again seems obvious, right? However, it is important to note that adding bottom navigation doesn\u2019t just mean a black bar at the bottom of your screen like some kind of performance magic bullet. The goal is to make the items clear to the user so they know what they need to be doing, and how you achieve that could be different from one interface to the next. Google keeps experimenting with different navigation styles, but finally settled with the below when they conducted user research and testing.\n\nConclusion\nBy utilizing a collection of UI patterns and speed optimisation techniques, you can improve not only the actual speed of a site, but the perception of how quickly a user thinks your site is loading. It is critical to remember that users will not always be using your site in a calm and relaxed manner and that even their age can impact how they will use or not use your site. By improving your site\u2019s stability, you increase the likelihood of positive user engagement and task completion.\nYou can learn more about techniques to hack user perception and improve user speed by taking a look at an E-Book we published with Awwwards.com called Speed Matters: Design for Mobile Performance.", "year": "2017", "author": "Mustafa Kurtuldu", "author_slug": "mustafakurtuldu", "published": "2017-12-18T00:00:00+00:00", "url": "https://24ways.org/2017/designing-for-mobile-performance/", "topic": "ux"}
{"rowid": 203, "title": "Jobs-to-Be-Done in Your UX Toolbox", "contents": "Part 1: What is JTBD?\nThe concept of a \u201cjob\u201d in \u201cJobs-To-Be-Done\u201d is neatly encapsulated by a oft-quoted line from Theodore Levitt:\n\n\u201cPeople want a quarter-inch hole, not a quarter inch drill\u201d.\n\nEven so, Don Norman pointed out that perhaps Levitt \u201cstopped too soon\u201d at what the real customer goal might be. In the \u201cThe Design of Everyday Things\u201d, he wrote:\n\n\u201cLevitt\u2019s example of the drill implying that the goal is really a hole is only partially correct, however. When people go to a store to buy a drill, that is not their real goal. But why would anyone want a quarter-inch hole? Clearly that is an intermediate goal. Perhaps they wanted to hang shelves on the wall. Levitt stopped too soon. Once you realize that they don\u2019t really want the drill, you realize that perhaps they don\u2019t really want the hole, either: they want to install their bookshelves. Why not develop methods that don\u2019t require holes? Or perhaps books that don\u2019t require bookshelves.\u201d\n\nIn other words, a \u201cjob\u201d in JTBD lingo is a way to express a user need or provide a customer-centric problem frame that\u2019s independent of a solution. As Tony Ulwick says:\n\n\u201cA job is stable, it doesn\u2019t change over time.\u201d\n\nAn example of a job is \u201ctiding you over from breakfast to lunch.\u201d You could hire a donut, a flapjack or a banana for that mid-morning snack\u2014whatever does the job. If you can arrive at a clearly identified primary job (and likely some secondary ones too), you can be more creative in how you come up with an effective solution while keeping the customer problem in focus.\nThe team at Intercom wrote a book on their application of JTBD. In it, Des Traynor cleverly characterised how JTBD provides a different way to think about solutions that compete for the same job:                                \n\n\u201cEconomy travel and business travel are both capable candidates applying for [the job: Get me face-to-face with my colleague in San Francisco], though they\u2019re looking for significantly different salaries. Video conferencing isn\u2019t as capable, but is willing to work for a far smaller salary. I\u2019ve a hiring choice to make.\u201d\n\nSo far so good: it\u2019s relatively simple to understand what a job is, once you understand how it\u2019s different from a \u201ctask\u201d.  Business consultant and Harvard professor Clay Christensen talks about the concept of \u201chiring\u201d a product to do a \u201cjob\u201d, and firing it when something better comes along. If you\u2019re a company that focuses solutions on the customer job, you\u2019re more likely to succeed. You\u2019ll find these concepts often referred to as \u201cJobs-to-be-Done theory\u201d. But the application of Jobs-to-Be-Done theory is a little more complicated; it comprises several related approaches.\nI particularly like Jim Kalbach\u2019s description of how JTBD is a \u201clens through which to understand value creation\u201d. But it is also more. In my view, it\u2019s a family of frameworks and methods\u2014and perhaps even a philosophy.\nDifferent facets in a family of frameworks\nJTBD has its roots in market research and business strategy, and so it comes to the research table from a slightly different place compared to traditional UX or design research\u2014we have our roots in human-computer interaction and ergonomics. I\u2019ve found it helpful to keep in mind is that the application of JTBD theory is an evolving beast, so it\u2019s common to find contradictions across different resources. My own use of it has varied from project to project. In speaking to others who have adopted it in different measures, it seems that we have all applied it in somewhat multifarious ways. As we like to often say in interviews: there are no wrong answers.\nOutcome Driven Innovation\nTony Ulwick\u2019s version of the JTBD history began with Outcome Driven Innovation (ODI), and this approach is best outlined in his seminal article published in the Harvard Business Review in 2002.  To understand his more current JTBD approach in his new book \u201cJobs to Be Done: Theory to Practice\u201d, I actually found it beneficial to read his approach in the original 2002 article for a clearer reference point.\nIn the earlier article, Ulwick presented a rigorous approach that combines interviews, surveys and an \u201copportunity\u201d algorithm\u2014a sequence of steps to determine the business opportunity. ODI centres around working with \u201cdesired outcome statements\u201d that you unearth through interviews, followed by a means to quantify the gap between importance and satisfaction in a survey to different types of customers.  \nSince 2008, Ulwick has written about using job maps to make sense of what the customer may be trying to achieve. In a recent article, he describes the aim of the activity is \u201cto discover what the customer is trying to get done at different points in executing a job and what must happen at each juncture in order for the job to be carried out successfully.\u201d\nA job map is not strictly a journey map, however tempting it is to see it that way. From a UX perspective, is one of many models we can use\u2014and as our research team at Clearleft have found, how we use model can depend on the nature of the jobs we\u2019ve uncovered in interviews and the characteristics of the problem we\u2019re attempting to solve.\nFigure 1. Universal job map\nUlwick\u2019s current methodology is outlined in his new book, where he describes a complete end-to-end process: from customer and competitor research to framing market and product strategy.\nThe Jobs-To-Be-Done Interview\nBack in 2013, I attended a workshop by Chris Spiek and Bob Moesta from the ReWired Group on JTBD at the behest of a then-MailChimp colleague, and I came away excited about their approach to product research. It felt different from anything I\u2019d done before and for the first time in years, I felt that I was genuinely adding something new to my research toolbox.\nA key idea is that if you focus on the stories of those who switched to you, and those who switch away from you, you can uncover the core jobs through looking at these opposite ends of engagement.\nThis framework centres around the JTBD interview method, which harnesses the power of a narrative framework to elicit the real reasons why someone \u201chired\u201d something to do a job\u2014be it something physical like a new coffee maker, or a digital service, such as a to-do list app. As you interview, you are trying to unearth the context around the key moments on the JTBD timeline (Figure 2). A common approach is to begin from the point the customer might have purchased something, back to the point where the thought of buying this thing first occurred to them.\nFigure 2. JTBD Timeline\nFigure 3. The Four Forces\nThe Forces Diagram (Figure 3) is a post-interview analysis tool where you can map out what causes customers to switch to something new and what holds them back.\nThe JTBD interview is effective at identifying core and secondary jobs, as well as some context around the user need. Because this method is designed to extract the story from the interviewee, it\u2019s a powerful way to facilitate recall. Having done many such interviews, I\u2019ve noticed one interesting side effect: participants often remember more details later on after the conversation has formally ended. It is worth scheduling a follow-up phone call or keep the channels open.\nStrengths aside, it\u2019s good to keep in mind that the JTBD interview is still primarily an interview technique, so you are relying on the context from the interviewee\u2019s self-reported perspective. For example, a stronger research methodology combines JTBD interviews with contextual research and quantitative methods.  \nJob Stories\nAlan Klement is credited for coming up with the term \u201cjob story\u201d to describe the framing of jobs for product design by the team at Intercom:\n\n\u201cWhen \u2026 I want to \u2026 so I can \u2026.\u201d\n\nFigure 4. Anatomy of a Job Story\nUnlike a user story that traditionally frames a requirement around personas, job stories frame the user need based on the situation and context. Paul Adams, the VP of Product at Intercom, wrote:\n\n\u201cWe frame every design problem in a Job, focusing on the triggering event or situation, the motivation and goal, and the intended outcome. [\u2026] We can map this Job to the mission and prioritise it appropriately. It ensures that we are constantly thinking about all four layers of design. We can see what components in our system are part of this Job and the necessary relationships and interactions required to facilitate it. We can design from the top down, moving through outcome, system, interactions, before getting to visual design.\u201d\n\nSystems of Progress\nApart from advocating using job stories, Klement believes that a core tenet of applying JTBD revolves around our desire for \u201cself-betterment\u201d\u2014and that focusing on everyone\u2019s desire for self-betterment is core to a successful strategy.\nIn his book, Klement takes JTBD further to being a tool for change through applying systems thinking. There, he introduces the systems of progress and how it can help focus product strategy approach to be more innovative.\nCoincidentally, I applied similar thinking on mapping systemic change when we were looking to improve users\u2019 trust with a local government forum earlier this year. It\u2019s not just about capturing and satisfying the immediate job-to-be-done, it\u2019s about framing the job so that you can a clear vision forward on how you can help your users improve their lives in the ways they want to.\nThis is really the point where JTBD becomes a philosophy of practice.\nPart 2: Mixing It Up\nThere has been some misunderstanding about how adopting JTBD means ditching personas or some of our existing design tools or research techniques. This couldn\u2019t have been more wrong.\nFigure 5: Jim Kalbach\u2019s JTBD model\nJim Kalbach has used Outcome-Driven Innovation for around 10 years. In a 2016 article, he presents a synthesised model of how to think about that has key elements from ODI, Christensen\u2019s theories and the structure of the job story.\nMore interestingly, Kalbach has also combined the use of mental models with JTBD.\nClaire Menke of UDemy has written a comprehensive article about using personas, JTBD and customer journey maps together in order to communicate more complete story from the users\u2019 perspective. Claire highlights an especially interesting point in her article as she described her challenges:\n\u201cAfter much trial and error, I arrived at a foundational research framework to suit every team\u2019s needs \u2014 allowing everyone to share the same holistic understanding, but extract the type of information most applicable to their work.\u201d\nIn other words, the organisational context you are in likely can dictate what works best\u2014after all the goal is to arrive at the best user experience for your audiences. Intercom can afford to go full-on on applying JTBD theory as a dominant approach because they are a start-up, but a large company or organisation with multiple business units may require a mix of tools, outputs and outcomes.\nJTBD is an immensely powerful approach on many fronts\u2014you\u2019ll find many different references that lists the ways you can apply JTBD. However, in the context of this discussion, it might also be useful to we examine where it lies in our models of how we think about our UX and product processes.\nJTBD in the UX ecosystem\nFigure 6. The Elements of User Experience (source)\nThere are many ways we have tried to explain the UX discipline but I think Jesse James Garrett\u2019s Elements of User Experience is a good place to begin.\nI sometimes also use little diagram to help me describe the different levels you might work at when you work through the complexity of designing and developing a product. A holistic UX strategy needs to address all the different levels for a comprehensive experience: your individual product UI, product features, product propositions and brand need to have a cohesive definition.\nFigure 7. Which level of product focus?\nWe could, of course, also think about where it fits best within the double diamond.\nAgain, bearing in mind that JTBD has its roots in business strategy and market research, it is excellent at clarifying user needs, defining high-level specifications and content requirements. It is excellent for validating brand perception and value proposition \u2014all the way down to your feature set. In other words, it can be extremely powerful all the way through to halfway of the second diamond. You could quite readily combine the different JTBD approaches because they have differences as much as overlaps. However, JTBD generally starts getting a little difficult to apply once we get to the details of UI design.\nThe clue lies in JTBD\u2019s raison d\u2019\u00eatre: a job statement is solution independent. Hence, once we get to designing solutions, we potentially fall into a existential black hole.\nThat said, Jim Kalbach has a quick case study on applying JTBD to content design tucked inside the main article on a synthesised JTBD model. Alan Klement has a great example of how you could use UI to resolve job stories. You\u2019ll notice that the available language of \u201cjobs\u201d drops off at around that point.\nJob statements and outcome statements provide excellent \u201cmini north-stars\u201d as customer-oriented focal points, but purely satisfying these statements would not necessarily guarantee that you have created a seamless and painless user experience.\nPlaying well with others\nYou will find that JTBD plays well with Lean, and other strategy tools like the Value Proposition Canvas. With every new project, there is potential to harness the power of JTBD alongside our established toolbox.\nWhen we need to understand complex contexts where cultural or socioeconomic considerations have to be taken into account, we are better placed with combining JTBD with more anthropological approaches. And while we might be able to evaluate if our product, website or app satisfies the customer jobs through interviews or surveys, without good old-fashioned usability testing we are unlikely to be able to truly validate why the job isn\u2019t being represented as it should. In this case, individual jobs solved on the UI can be set up as hypotheses to be proven right or wrong. \nThe application of Jobs-to-be-Done is still evolving. I\u2019ve found it to be very powerful and I struggle to remember what my UX professional life was like before I encountered it\u2014it has completely changed my approach to research and design.\nThe fact JTBD is still evolving as a practice means we need to be watchful of dogma\u2014there\u2019s no right way to get a UX job done after all, it nearly always depends. At the end of the day, isn\u2019t it about having the right tool for the right job?", "year": "2017", "author": "Steph Troeth", "author_slug": "stephtroeth", "published": "2017-12-04T00:00:00+00:00", "url": "https://24ways.org/2017/jobs-to-be-done-in-your-ux-toolbox/", "topic": "ux"}