The ABCs of UX: The Diverse Disciplines (Part 2/3)


(Originally first published on July 4, 2014 at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140704151444-9377042-the-abcs-of-ux-the-diverse-disciplines-part-2-3/

Also, this article is a part of the title UX Simplified: Models & Methodologies by Samir Dash (ISBN: 978-1-3115-9110-4 / ASIN: B00LPQ22O0 ).  Available at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LPQ22O0/


The current post is the 2nd in the series of 3 posts, where I would like to clarify the definitions and concepts that are core to our context covering User Experience (UX),Information Architecture(IA) and Interaction Design (IxD).

Interaction Design (IxD)

Wikipedia defines Interaction Design as:

In design, human–computer interaction, and software development,interaction design, often abbreviated IxD, is “about shaping digital things for people’s use”

Interaction design involves attributes of several related disciplines such as :

  1. Design research
  2. Human–computer interaction
  3. Cognitive psychology
  4. Human factors and ergonomics
  5. Industrial design
  6. Architecture
  7. User interface design

Interaction design focuses more on human behavior through scientific tools and statistics, even when it is in fact is opposed to the disciplines which focus on “how things are” . Even when it uses tools that span across design and engineering domains, by it’s ability to perform “synthesis and imagining things as they might be” makes it a part of “designing” field.

In his book Designing Interactions. Gillian Crampton Smith, defined 4 dimensions of Interaction Design, to which Kevin Silver later added the 5 and the most important dimension (i.e. behaviour).

Fig:1

Fig. 1 represents the 5 dimensions of IxD namely:

  1. Words: This dimension defines the interactions. Words are the interaction that users use to interact with.
  2. Visual Representations: The visual representations are the things that the user interacts with on the interface. These may include but not limited to “typography, diagrams, icons, and other graphics”
  3. Physical objects or space: The space with which the user interacts is the third dimension of interaction design. It defines the space or objects “with which or within which users interact with”
  4. Time: The time with which the user interacts with the interface. Some examples of this are “content that changes over time such as sound, video, or animation”
  5. Behavior: The behavior defines the users’ actions reaction to the interface and how they respond to it.

Many confuse between Interaction Design with User Interface design, as in most cases interaction design is associated with the designing activities of interfaces. However Interaction Design focuses more “on the aspects of the interface that define and present its behavior over time, with a focus on developing the system to respond to the user’s experience and not the other way around”.

User Interface Design (UI)

Wikipedia defines it as :

User interface designor user interface engineering is the design ofcomputers, appliances, machines, mobile communication devices, software applications, and websites with the focus on the user’s experience and interaction. The goal of user interface design is to make the user’s interaction as simple and efficient as possible, in terms of accomplishing user goals—what is often called user-centered design. Good user interface design facilitates finishing the task at hand without drawing unnecessary attention to itself. Graphic design may be utilized to support its usability. The design process must balance technical functionality and visual elements (e.g., mental model) to create a system that is not only operational but also usable and adaptable to changing user needs.

User Interface design is somewhat “the form-giving counterpart to interaction design”. User Interface design differs from interaction design primarily in “ its focus on the behavior of artifacts rather than the behavior of humans”.In UI, the center of all the focus is artifacts that makes the interface, where as in case of IxD it is the human behavior that takes the center stage.

In case of a Software production process the UI is more associated with the Graphical User interface designer. In industrial design case, UI is more tilted towards the industrial designer.

Fig: 2

The Fig:2, shows various disciplines that contribute to User Interface Design.

Usability and Mental Models: Foundations of UX

What is Usability?

In 1998, the International Standards Organization (ISO),the organization well known for development of standards for industrial processes and product quality, defined“usability” as :

the effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction with which specified users achieve specified goals in a particular environment. (ISO 9241)

ISO model prescribed the following 3 criteria as components of usability:

  1. Effectiveness: accuracy and completeness with which specified users can achieve specified goals in a particular environment
  2. Efficiency: the resources expended in relation to the accuracy and completeness of the goals achieved
  3. Satisfaction: the comfort and acceptability of the work system to its users and other people affected by its use.

Fig: 3

One year later , in 1999, Cosantine and Lockwood defined ‘usability’ as:

being composed of the learnability, retainability, efficiency of use, and user satisfaction of a product.

So basically it was an upgrade to the existing “usability” definition, with the addition of two new components:

  1. Learnability: the product usability can be learned by the user
  2. Retainability: the product usability an be retained by the user.

Basically the addition of the above two components gave rise to the concepts of “mental model” of the user and it’s role in usability.

System Models

During 1980-90’s many “system models” evolved. These models were actually representation of a system from different stake holders’ perception, namely: the user, the programmer and the designer.

Fig:4

Among the evolved models, the most notables were that of Norman , Cooperand IBM:

  1. The model based on the programmer’s perception:
    This was the way that a system works from the programmer’s perspective
  2. User’s Mental Model:
    The way that the user perceives that the system works.
  3. The model based on the designer’s perception:

The way the designer represents the program to the user, including presentation, interaction, and object relationships.

(To be continued)

(2) 2013-14, Samir Dash

The ABCs of UX: The Diverse Disciplines (Part 1/3)


(Originally first published on July 4, 2014 at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140704013122-9377042-the-abcs-of-ux-the-diverse-disciplines-part-1-3/ )

Also, this article is a part of the title UX Simplified: Models & Methodologies by Samir Dash (ISBN: 978-1-3115-9110-4 / ASIN: B00LPQ22O0 ).  Available at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LPQ22O0/


 

“To understand what the user is looking for in the things he is looking at.”

The current post is the first one in the series of 3 posts, where I would like to clarify the definitions and concepts that are core to our context covering User Experience (UX)Information Architecture(IA) and Interaction Design (IxD).

User Experience (UX)

User experience (UX) is a convergence of several disciplines. There is no final fool-proof list of disciplines which come together to form it. But yes, there are many popular explanations by social scientists, industrial designers and information architects which describe it as a combination of a verity of disciplines.

Fig: 1

The most popular and accepted compilation of disciplines is shown in Fig 1 where it is represented as a combination of :

  1. Information Architecture (IA)
  2. Visual Design
  3. Industrial Design
  4. Human Factors
  5. Interaction Design (IxD)
  6. Human – Computer Interaction (HCI)
  7. Architecture

There are variations available to this where commercial aspects are added to it . Fig 2 represents such a case.

In Fig:2, you can see the UX definition has been seen as all those disciplines which can work together to provide a solution that can deliver “customer with a harmonious and consistent experience”.

If you notice all the aspects such as “branding” and “customer service” are related with emotional aspect of human behavior. So user experience is also about emotions and psychological dimensions of customer’s perceptions about the product. Wikipedia also defines “User Experience” as :

User experience (UX or UE) involves a person’s emotions about using a particular product, system or service. User experience highlights the experiential, affective, meaningful and valuable aspects of human-computer interaction and product ownership. Additionally, it includes a person’s perceptions of the practical aspects such as utility, ease of use and efficiency of the system. User experience is subjective in nature because it is about individual perception and thought with respect to the system. User experience is dynamic as it is constantly modified over time due to changing circumstances and new innovations.”

Similarly ISO 9241-210 defines user experience as:

a person’s perceptions and responses that result from the use or anticipated use of a product, system or service”. According to the ISO definition user experience includes all the users’ emotions, beliefs, preferences, perceptions, physical and psychological responses, behaviors and accomplishments that occur before, during and after use. The ISO also list three factors that influence user experience: system, user and the context of use.

So basically, “User Experience” deals with the “How” factor of the product or system rather than it’s “What” factor. Most of the customers buy the product not because simply “what it does”, rather the “how” factor takes priority when it comes to choose from a several similar products.

We will dive deep throughout this series, but before that let’s see clear similar jargons.

Information Architecture (IA)

While exploring UX in previous section, we saw that Information Architecture (IA) is one of the contributing disciplines which form the total User Experience. During 1960’s ,Richard Saul Wurman, an architect by profession having skills of a graphic designer, author and an editor of numerous fine graphics related books, coined the term “Information Architecture”. He mostly developed concepts “ in the ways in which information about urban environments could be gathered, organized, and presented in meaningful ways to architects, to urban planners, to utility and transport engineers, and especially to people living in or visiting cities”. Later these impacted a set of disciplines such as library- and information-science (LIS) , graphic design and in recent years the world wide web (www). During 1990’s , with the evolution of the Web, there rose the need to rethink the presentation of library-catalog information as this information has been moved into online public-access catalogs, and in part to the proliferation of information on the Web itself. So during 90’s IA has taken on something of a connotation of applying especially to the organization of information on the World-Wide Web.

Basically Information Architecture (IA), all about organizing information in a meaningful way so that the user can easily find it when needed through proper organizationnavigation,labelingandsearchingsystems.IA also takes care of the process that ensures that there is no information breakdown or explosion with the scaling of information overtime.

Fig: 3

Fig:3 represents the 3 basic ingredients of IA, namely:

Users: This represents those who will use the product or system, their “information seeking behaviour” and their needs. Any of the following roles/skills/features can be applied to them:

  1. Personas
  2. Ethnography
  3. Usability Testing
  4. Expressing User Needs

Content: This is what is presented to the users through the product or system. This includes the data or information that is offered, along with its aspects such as volume, metadata, structure and organization. Sample skills/roles/features/concepts revolving around content are:

  1. Indexing
  2. Cataloguing
  3. Site Architecture
  4. Writing
  5. Content management
  6. Navigation
  7. Labeling
  8. Search mechanism

Context: This is what gives meaning to the content that is being served to the user. This can have the attributes like business model, business value, resource, resource constraints, culture etc. The following features/roles/skills are associated with context:

  1. Defining business requirements
  2. Project management
  3. Business model analysis
  4. ROI calculation
  5. Client management
  6. Technical constraints

(To be continued…)

(c) Samir Dash , 2013 -14

Specstra 2.0 : My Experiments in Cloud Based Design Process Automation

(Originally posted on August 1, 2016 at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/specstra-20-my-experiments-cloud-based-design-process-samir-dash/ )

“Automation” is one of the trending phenomenon of the current technological world. Manufacturing industry has been pioneering it for decades. Other verticals are following it. In software development , testing and deployment field, automation is popularized by Dev OPS and Continuous Integration (CI) that helps speed up the software development life cycle (SDLC). But the SDLC is not only about the So what about the software design industry? What about the design phases of any SDLC? While design is getting more and more recognition across the entrepreneur world and many industry efforts like ‘IBM Design Thinking’ and similar frameworks and associated methodologies are trying to create a synergy between the ‘Agile’ approach of SDLC and the “Design Thinking”, it is an interesting crossroad in time, that can show ways of developing more usable and meticulously designed software and similar products. So when everyone is trying to bring automation to speed up process and speed up delivery, it is really interesting as well as challenging to come up solutions and tools that help in automation of designing phase of SDLC.

(Fig – It takes a minute or two for ‘Specstra’ to generate a print-ready 100 pages long style guide for any submitted design)

 

(Fig – The printable visual style guide generated within minutes from ‘Specstra’ comes handy for developers to make a pixel perfect UI)

In context of Software industry I always see “Design”  as an intersection between creativity and the technology where both shape each with the help from user needs and blending of these results into successful products. This also is the reason automating designing process is a lot more challenging than building solutions for automation of purely technology driven process. I accepted this challenge 2 years back during my short stint at an R&D center at Bangalore, of a leading mobile  brand, I was part of a large design team, where almost 70% of the crowd was visual designer and the rest belong to user experience and research team members. And many of these visual team who worked on different projects, complained about certain phases of the design process that involved creation of style guide of the app that they were working on. Every app project used to be developed for different flagship phones models with different resolutions as well as screen densities. And being developed in native languages for Android view-ports, designer used to develop each style guide for each project separately for each model of phone. Each style-guide has to be detailed to pixel level which the designer has to calculate and define taking calculation of the view port pixel density(PD). Many designers have to maintain different versions of the mock-up and the create specs for each version, which was more like a “drafts man’s job” with lesser creative moments for expressions and innovation than the previous phase where the designer has to follow the wire-frame and come up with pixel perfect mock-ups of the app screens.

Almost all the designers tried to grab their hands on the creative part of the job, getting engaged with the stake holders and
The senior designers prefered to avoid working on the style-guide, though they would love to review one. The not so seniors worked on the the drafting of the guide and churned out the specs document, yet do the crying that it is less creative even though it is one of the most critical part of the design process.

So I thought of calculating how much effort we are giving to a creative phase of creating a visual mock-up vs. a drafting work , i.e. creation of a specs document /style-guide. Roughly on average one view of a single screen to  be mocked up in something around 4-8 hours. creation of a very detailed spec. might need 4-6 hours of job. But if it is designed for multiple view-ports of an operating system with significant pixel density change along with varied resolutions, then this drafting time gets multiplied. So by creating 4 generations of phone models running different generation of Android might need 16- 24 hours. So the designer actually takes roughly one week of work for a view in this case from wire-framing stage to finished design with specs ready for the developer. Averagely an app can have 10 views , so the whole app would need approximately a month of work to be designed and be ready for 4 different models. Even though this is a very haigh level bare-bone calculation, it indicates a few things —

 

So in this context for a designer —
1. for the designer 1/4th of his work remains creative and gives him the scope to explore, innovate and express through his designs.
2. remaining 3/4th of his time is a purely drafts-man job.
So a designers job is actually boring as the volume of his output is not creative or inspirational.

For the organization —
1. It is paying higher fee for lower type of work. To exlain it — a creative work like that of coming of new designs is typically high paid job, where as the drafting job based on a creative guy’s is a low profile job , and should be paid less.
But interestingly this is the same designer, so the payment rate is actually based on his skill of how he performs in the 1/4th of the job where the creative juice flows and he is actually innovates.

2. Even though the 3/4th of the job is lower profile job, which could have been automated,consumes more from the delivery time. if we look at the timeline of the delivery of the design deliverables, we see that 1/4th of the delivery time is actually spent in creative way. So actually if there is a scope to automate the low profile manual work, where the designer does not need to use his right brain, then the deliverables could have been delivered in just 1 week instead of a month! Also note that time is money for industry, so the organization is actually spend 300% more than it should and that too on a higher price point.

Again apart from this there are other factor that contributed to a above problem. Being in a world of rapidly changing requirements, many industry are following “Agile” or “Iterative” approach of work. Which means in the short notice things can change even to the look and feel and UI aspect which would mean a change to the style guide if view of standard control lines are affected.This has a cascading effect that flows through the style guide work. So any change in such requirement means the wastage of effort and addition of new efforts to keep the specs aligned. Imagine, if multiple design centered projects are running on mission critical deadlines due to faster time to market needs, and such kind of scenario is happening to most of the projects. Looking at these kind of need, many design firms, keep a larger design workforce, to absorb such shocks. But that means more volume of cash burn at a higher price points for the enterprise and smaller startups do not stand a chance in such scenarios.

Another aspect that I think is important to notice here is that due to time crunch, many designers prefer to avoid granularity in the style guides. Provide common documentation and provide very high level change documentations to developers. Also in some cases there are gaps left in the document that go unnoticed, which forces the developers to get in touch with the designers during development phases. Also due to lack of a complete and meaningful style guide or specs, the software testing also gets impacted due to many blur lines among what is in and what’s out. Certain things the testers take as assumptions while completing the testing phases.

Specstra is a pet prototype that I had started working on, 3 years back (around 2013) to explore a possible solution for design related automation process.
The problem of design automation is most of the process blocks are related to creative aspect of the work the designer does. So I started with the blocks that were more aligned to less creative activity so that these blocks can be removed from the creative process flow . One of such area was creation of style guide design from the selected design where the designer has to spend hours to manually define specs.

 

SAMPLE STYLE GUIDE GENERATED FROM THE PROTOTYPE
https://samirshomepage.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/sample-generated-style-guide-output1418308769-en.pdf

 

The user can upload  Adobe Photoshop (  PSD), Adobe Illustrator (.AI), or PDF formatted exported from any design tool (Corel draw, Paint etc.) and within minutes Specstra can generate style guide which other wise would have taken the user days to complete and that with prone to error.

Typical Pain-points of manual approach of style-guide or a specs document creation are:

  1.  Tedious process
  2.  Lots of manual work 
    no creativity – draftsman-ship work is not fun for designer.
  3.  Time & effort consuming activity
  4.  Not scalable
    there is limit to how much a single designer can do
  5.  Comes with cost 
    Creative guys are paid to do these non-creative tings – however charges   remain the same.
  6.  Threat to agile projects 
    last moment changes in design can impact the software delivery

 

Specstra addressed all of these along with some additional benefits —

  1. Completely Cloud based
    N
    o software to install
  2. Not restricted to Adobe software solution
    Can support non adobe software
  3. Minimal user intervention is workflow
    Design automation is possible
  4. Quick to Delivery
    Reduces the designer time to delivery by 99% or more.
  5. Saves $$$$
    Saves money by 50% or more.
  6. Supports creativity
    Designer can save more time for creative stuffs and is saved from draftsman-ship.
  7. Multi-language support
    Helps a global team
  8. Supports Agile SDLC
    Quick iterations and design changes will not delay the time to development as style guide can be ready in a few minutes.
  9. One click User Experience
    One click GUI guide makes the workflow super easy.
  10. Automatically handles multiple device resolutions and screen densities.
  11. Scalable for any volume of works.
  12. No need to pay to reserve people for the work .

 

Overview of Features:

Multi Design file support:
Outputs from Photoshop, Illustrator, Corel Draw, In-Design, Gem  to be supported.

Super easy to use dashboard:
Dashboard that is easy to use and aligns with the design workflow.

Customized report builder:
Editor to add and remove details, renaming etc.

 

Detailed Report:
Font, Shape, Color, Grid, Absolute, Relative positioning. In every iteration the report  is complete in all respect.

5-10 minutes delivery  :
All reports will be generated in 5-10 minutes of upload.

 

 

Feature #1 – Complete details of the objects

 

  •  Supports text/font, shape, image objects
  •  Resolution dependent (Screen Pixel) units
  •  Resolution independent (Point) units (Auto conversion based on target pixel density of the device ) – example iOS Retina, Non-Retina, Android (LDPI, MDPI, HDPI, XHDPI, XXHDPI, XXXHDPI etc. ), PC Screen standard web resolution  etc.
  •  Font formatting information – size , family, style, color,

 

Feature #2 — Complete details of color, shapes, images & font

  • Supports text/font, shape, image objects
  • Font formatting information – size , family, style, color,
  •  Web safe / Non-web safe color analysis

 

SAMPLE STYLE GUIDE GENERATED FROM THE PROTOTYPE
https://samirshomepage.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/sample-generated-style-guide-output1418308769-en.pdf

 

LINK1:
https://www.behance.net/gallery/41228843/Specstra-2-Cloud-Based-Style-Guide-Automation

LINK2:
https://www.behance.net/gallery/26346085/Specstra-Extract-CSS-Assets-Info-from-PSD-Design-

Socio-Cultural UX (SX) in Context of Ontology, Information Architecture & Culture

(This article was originally published on March 24, 2018 https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/socio-cultural-ux-sx-context-ontology-information-culture-samir-dash/ )

During late 19th- and 20th-century, a set of European philosophers who, despite profound doctrinal differences, shared the belief that philosophical thinking begins with the human subject—not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual. This doctrine, more popularly known as Existentialism, started from Søren Kierkegaard who proposed that proposed that each individual—not society or religion—is solely responsible for giving meaning to life and living it passionately and sincerely, or “authentically“. After the Second World War years this impacted various discipline including theology, drama, art, literature, and psychology etc. and was carried over by the philosophers like Dostoyevsky, Nietzsche and Sartre.

Sartre claimed that a central proposition of Existentialism is that existence precedes essence, which means that the most important consideration for individuals is that they are individuals—independently acting and responsible, conscious beings (“existence”)—rather than what labels, roles, stereotypes, definitions, or other preconceived categories the individuals fit. So basically, “human beings, through their own consciousness, create their own values and determine a meaning to their life.”

Even though this doctrine was used and misused heavily in the disciplines like literature and filmmaking, it has elements that often helps to revisit and refining existing user experience and usability models, as the underlying concept has ontological aspects involved.

Ontology is even older philosophy, since the time of Parmenides (late sixth or early fifth century BC around the time or Aristotle), related to existence that is more of a study of the nature of being, becoming, existence and reality with the specific focus on the categorization of beings and their interrelationships. Basically, from the field of Metaphysics, it is the study or concern about what kinds of things exist – what entities there are in the universe. When we look at the whole gamut of ontology, we find three terms having the most practical context to user experience discipline – ontology, taxonomy and choreography.

Information Architecture is much more than a sitemap or wireframes. The classical definition of UX always points to have an aspect of “meaningful” to the context of experience for the user. This term “meaning” is more or less derived from the ontological perspective. The Theater of Absurd movement of 1960’s, revolved around the concept of the existence of human and the exploration of “meaning”. Samuel Beckett‘s Waiting for Godot(1966), where the two tramps waited for the Godot through-out the play, and who never arrived till the end, raised the debates that spurred many literary theories and views till the present day, tried to define what or who the Godot is. Many made the reference to archaic as well as biblical roots, where there was another sect who gave the Godot a new meaning as a saviour or a Christ of that age. Interestingly when it was asked to Beckett about the meaning of Godot, he answered “If I knew, I would have said so in the play”

Similarly, Jean-Paul Sartre wrote No Exit in 1944, an existentialist play originally published in French as Huis Clos (meaning In Camera or “behind closed doors”), which is the source of the popular quote, “Hell is other people.” (In French, “L’enfer, c’est les autres”). The play begins with a Valet leading a man into a room that the audience soon realizes is in hell. Eventually, he is joined by two women. After their entry, the Valet leaves and the door is shut and locked. All three expect to be tortured, but no torturer arrives. Instead, they realize they are there to torture each other, which they do effectively by probing each other’s sins, desires, and unpleasant memories. It reflects how ontology affects the meaning of entities/users.

In phenomenology, the terms the Other and the Constitutive Other each identify a cumulative, constituting factor in the self-image of a person; his or her acknowledgement of being real.As such, the Other is dissimilar to and the opposite of the Self, of Us, and of the Same. The condition and quality of Otherness, the characteristics of the Other, is the state of being different from and alien to the social identity of a person and to the identity of the Self.

-Wikipedia

So in user experience, specifically to communication context typically when we speak about ontological factors, we mostly mean language implies certain meaning to us, but may be confusing to others. One word can have a variety of meaning which may be simply opposite to what the user might need to communicate. This communication medium can be oral through any language, through gestures, through visual indicators over a UI etc.

As we know that a mental model of any user varies from another based on his prior experience and expectation of the subject in context. The user is always in the centre and reacts to another user or a subject through any mode of interaction and/or communication. The information that flows through this system (e.g. hypertext system or a social gathering at a certain point in time and place) is significant gets affected by the mental models of the users present and the ontological contexts they have about the others (including the users and the subjects) in that context. In information technology, an ontology is the working model of entities and interactions in some particular domain of knowledge or practices, such as electronic commerce or “the activity of planning.” In artificial intelligence ( AI ), an ontology is, according to Tom Gruber, an AI specialist at Stanford University, “the specification of conceptualizations, used to help programs and humans share knowledge.” In this usage, an ontology is a set of concepts – such as things, events, and relations – that are specified in some way (such as specific natural language) in order to create an agreed-upon vocabulary for exchanging information.

In recent years the awareness about the influence of culture on the UX practices have been increased. Day by day, Human Factor professionals are increasingly reviving the UX tools, frameworks and methodologies in the light of a better understanding of how culture influences user experience and how people think, behave, and feel. awareness of culture is extremely critical as the global community becomes interdependent economically, politically, and socially. To achieve success in the current international marketplace, Human Factors/Ergonomics (HF/E) professionals need to develop an understanding of people from other cultures, such as, for example, how psycho-social factors influence performance in the workplace due to cultural differences.

Power Distance Index (PDI) describes the degree to which less powerful members or a society accept an unequal distribution of power. The central question in this dimension is how a society handles inequalities among individuals. A high power distance means that people within a society have accepted a certain hierarchical order and the inequalities that come with it. In a society with a low power distance, people are constantly trying to equalize the distribution of power, especially those who have less power.

In the articles like Major cultural-compatibility complex: considerations on cross-cultural dissemination of patient safety programmes it is explored how the people from societies with a small power distance don’t like to be controlled. They only accept leadership if it’s based on true expertise.

So one of the popular approaches to design for cross cultural user experience is what Sabina Idler describes as — “Offer enough objective and detailed information on your website to allow people to make up their own mind. Meet your website visitors on eye-level, treat them with respect, and show interest in their needs. Communicate with this group in an informal, direct, and participative way to gain their trust and get them engaged”.

Similarly, it comes out from such research and explorations that website “visitors from societies with a big power distance are used to authorities and solid structures. Be prepared that they take you as an expert and trust you as an authority figure. Make sure you offer them facts and clear statements and don’t give them too much responsibility. Visitors from this group are less critical and less driven to search for detailed information in order to make up their own mind”.

Another cultural aspect that is critical while planning user experience for cross cultural segments is Individualism versus collectivism (IDV). The second dimension describes how much people in a group focus on themselves and on the group as a whole. The position of a society on this dimension is reflected in whether people refer to themselves as “I” or “we”. Individualist societies prefer a loose social network in which everyone is expected to take care of themselves and their immediate families. In a collectivist culture, people care as much or even more for others than for themselves. In exchange, others take care of them. visitors from a collectivist culture act in the interest of the group, rather than their own interest. They make decisions based on the opinion of others and on what’s common or popular, not so much on their individual desire. Consider this on your website and offer enough reference points, such as “most popular” categories, testimonials, or social media sharing options to gather instant and personal feedback from friends.

In Methodological Advancements of Cross-Cultural User-Centered Product Development  (2009) (https://books.google.co.in/books?id=uoReAer3ixgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false ) details, the outcome a research that aims at the further advancement of the methodological foundations of cross-cultural user-centred product development approaches based on a stable and profound theoretical basis. The research used approach to ‘study the applicability of six distinct user-centred product development methodologies’ and was ‘tested with 248 participants in total’ using ‘western concepts and theories, and their applicability in disparate cultural contexts of the Far East (China and Korea in particular)’.

The different components of influencing factors analyzed in the context of the result of the research for the cross-cultural method application were – Cognitive abilities, Creativity, Decision Making, Mental Models, Problem Solving, Emotion, Communication, Engagement, Extrinsic, Intrinsic, Ideals and Motivation.

“When asked about top three reasons for failure of International development projects experts mainly pointed out a lack of understanding about the target culture’s user, insufficient financial support and tight time schedules.”  [p. 26]

Also the dissertation suggests “ethnocentric biases” as the red flagged attribute that has to be avoided. “Consequently the experts’ top advices for being prepared for international product development refer to avoiding ethnocentric biases, to be aware of the importance of human factors, i.e. to know the user of the target market, to get the management to buy in and to allow for an appropriate time schedule“   [p. 26]

Back in 2014, I had coined “SX” to represent the overall changing practice methods in usability domain, in the context of cultural and social factors that influences. In the blog post “Socio-cultural User Experience (SX) in context of Google Glass” (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140702135102-9377042-socio-cultural-user-experience-sx-in-context-of-google-glass ), tried to quantify the usability issues of Google Glass in context of the social and cultural context and deductive analysis gave a clue to the root of ‘public fear’ that was growing at the time against the Glass. It was interesting that starting from the later part of 2013, the topics related to The Google Glass infringing with personal privacy became hot cakes for tech-debates. Many social scientists, human rights activists have started to see the ‘Glass’ as the evil that reminds them with George Orwell’s ‘1984’. The fear of a ‘Google Big Brother’ controlling the major shares of the information world is seen as the intruder to private aspects of ‘the public’.

Socio-Cultural User Experience (SX) is the missing piece or the component for the existing tool that helps in bringing in the quantifiable model that tries to bridge the current gap. SX is a framework that also helps to see the social influence on the user and tries to get the insight into the light.

SX provided the required handle for easy customization and tailoring of the Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA)  for people from different cultures and social backgrounds. In addition, it helps in designing for an international market, gaining knowledge with regard to the influence of social and cultural factors on perception, cognition, decision making, persuasion, trust, safety, aesthetics, and usability.   It is interesting to see that the cultural context of the user is found to be a leading reason behind the failure of international projects.

Here is an infograph of SX you can download: http://desops.io/2018/05/07/slides-sx-heuristics/

 

The Evolution of Technology in the Context of Software Development & Design Process: Take-away from the First PatternFly Conference

[This post was originally published on Red Hat Developers, the community to learn, code, and share faster. To read the original post, click here.]

Last Sunday, I returned home, India, after attending a series of collaborative sessions in Raleigh, NC, with many designers and developers across Red Hat and the open-source community, at the UX Summit and the PatternFly Conference. The whole experience was inspiring, informative and at the same time thought provoking with many takeaways, out of which the most interesting for me was that cumulatively all the inspiring talks from the speakers of the conference were implicitly hinting towards a clue. How our attempt to solve the existing technical solutions also impact the existing work process and thereby demand a rethink on the process blocks we use.

Being part of the Red Hat UX Design team, it is always an exploration and giving value to the core principle of “being open” to the “Design” — this is something similar to how the “openness” is seen as the integral value of the “Development”.

“We approach user experience design in the same way we develop our products. It’s all about being open.”

– Jim Whitehurst, CEO & President, Red Hat

So, what’s so special about the design being open? Is it something different from how we design in a traditional enterprise organization? It’s natural to have such questions when we face the open paradigm of the design challenges — I had similar questions. One thing to note here is that designing for open-source has its own challenges that require a re-look at the existing design processes and frameworks especially in the software development scenarios that have been evolving over last two decades. With the focus to bring the user-centric focus to the existing sets of Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) — these were mostly about advocating Human Factors in the perspective through which we have been used to see SDLC.

But as day-by-day major enterprises are going open-source to bring more and more collaboration with the community to develop the software, the open-source movement itself is getting mature by gradual evolution through different seasonings in the context of the growth of technology and the changing market needs that are driving shaping the SDLCs. For example with the rise of startups in last few years, the adoption of MVP-driven Lean Development models instead of traditional SDLCs has increased indicating the evolving dynamics of adoption of such processes.

In the traditional enterprise, the design process is more or less influenced by standard UX approaches that have evolved over the last couple of decades. Taking into account the SDLC defined towards the end goal of the organization in context to the user experience related benchmarks. Many take different components/tools and methodologies from the Design Thinking and other similar HCI process models, and align them into the SDLC, be it agile, waterfall or hybrid, and try to achieve the user-centered software development (UCSD) from an engineering point of view.

There are sects of organizations, who take into account the user needs related benchmark and make the existing SDLC components to align to that — be it through User-Centered Design (UCD) approach blended with a part of Iterative, Agile or Lean SDLC models or simply following a ready made Lean UX model. While everyone is attempting to solve the UX equation to come up with the best possible framework that works great in advocating user needs, the question is still unsolved — what UX approach works best in a diversified collaborative open-source culture?

In the very first PatternFly conference held on 8th of this month, in his keynote, Michael Tiemann, VP of Open-source Affairs at Red Hat, referred to continuous evolution in the software development domain in context to design. His expressed views, which resonated more with the belief that the sustainable design solution can evolve from an organic design process, where reusability can play an important role.

(Michael Tiemann, Vice President of Open Source Affairs at Red Hat, delivering the keynote at the very first PatternFly Conference at Red Hat Annex, Raleigh on 8th June 2017)

The PatternFly community project supported by Red Hat is an attempt in such a direction that promotes “design commonality and improved user experience”. Dana’s blog post, Are “Web Components” in the future for PatternFly?, is an interesting read in this context from a technical angle where he addresses the thoughts on building a UI framework when there are so many choices and so many strong feelings about the different choices? While every organization is still trying to find the solutions for challenges related to UI development for a better experience such as – how to structure and organize CSS code for reusability in the ever-growing complex world of UI framework choices like Bootstrap, Angular & React etc. It’s also important not to forget that with each adoption of UI framework the impact on how we implement experiences to our products is also evolving, thereby making an impact to the process blocks that run the design, and development testing phases of SDLC.

This leads us to the hypothesis that with the evolution of newer technology adoptions, we are bringing the change catalysts to our development process, which can influence how we conceptualize and deliver the best experience for any product we are building. Along with it, as SDLCs are now getting re-shaped due to needs like, “faster time to market” and to bring out more sustainable solutions for the business needs, so is the associated stages of “Design”, “Development” and “Testing”. These are also getting more mature through the focus on Continuous Integration (CI) and Continuous Delivery (CD); thereby bringing a sea of change to the way software was planned, designed, developed, and tested traditionally. To this model when we add the “Open” aspect that demands the need to improve the process dynamics in order to ensure the end-to-end software delivery is sustainable in coming times. Red Hat’s recent open initiative to announce OpenShift.io is an attempt that tries to address all these aspects, at least it is a “start” where we start re-thinking openly about the solution that we thought we already have.

Openshift.io as an end-to-end development platform tries to address multiple areas or the process blocks like Planning, Analysis, and Creation, that tries to answer one question – what is the best way to deliver a software product in the most effective, seamless and consistent way in a diversified work-culture with value and best experience possible. It would be interesting to see how this platform evolves in coming times with the support and collaborative effort from the open source community to address these process related change catalysts that are getting their way into the work practices due to an ever growing complexity of technology change.

In the forthcoming posts, I will be exploring this context with respect to existing UX models and methodologies try to reflect thoughts on “UX in the Open “. Stay tuned.

(c) 2017,  Samir Dash. All rights reserved

Lean Methodologies & Hypothesis-Driven Design (HDD)

The second life-line as pointed out in the dimension of ‘Culture’ is “Cultural Shift towards Lean Philosophies” (Refer the part 5 of the current series here https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/desops-next-wave-design-part-5-definition-3-dimensions-samir-dash/ ). In this part of the series, we will be deep diving for the same.

Typically any lean methodologies are based two basic goals:

  1. Helping the organization understanding customer value
  2. Using the key processes of the organization to continuously increase it and work towards delivering a perfect value to the customer through a perfect value creation process with zero waste.

In the context of Design and User Experience(UX), in the seminal book Lean UX by Jeff Gothelf, provides some lean methodologies break the stalemate between the speed of Agile and the need for design in product development lifecycle” [Jeff Gothelf and Josh Seidenjeff, The Lean UX]. If we observe closely, the basic foundations of Lean UX prescribed are common to the core Lean philosophies, namely:

  1. Remove Wastage from Design Process — Moving away from heavy documentation to a process that creates artefacts which can be directly used in the design and development lifecycle itself.
  2. Cross-functional Collaboration — All the stakeholders from any parts of the product lifecycle including the designer, developers, quality experts, analysts, marketers and end-users all collaborate in a transparent and productive way.
  3. Experimentation Based Iterative Execution — So fundamentally it alludes to the UCD core principles, that assumes that the designer (or the team) learns from the execution of the prototypes in an iterative cycle that starts early in the product lifecycle, from which the learning is used as an input to improve the product along the way. If you notice this is the very basis of what we talked about the continuous and integrated feedback loop.

The use of Agile and Design Thinking practices can be seen alluding to the philosophies above. However, regarding the third philosophy — to ensure that the designer has the right approach to conduct the experimentation so that the feedback can be used in a productive way to take informative decision making along the way across the design process requires some non-ambiguous methodologies that can help the designer making some assumption and validate that through experimentation. This is the basis of one of the core foundations of Lean UX and related lean methodologies, which is popularly known as Hypothesis-Driven Design (HDD). As any design that we produce is based on certain assumption and HDD provides the non-ambiguous approach to the same, that follows the third philosophy i.e. Experimentation Based Iterative Execution.

“Declaring assumptions is the first step, in Lean UX process” [Jeff Gothelf and Josh Seidenjeff, The Lean UX] . This statement reflects how the assumptions or the hypothesis is the core the Lean UX principles. Basically, the four steps in the Lean UX approach is the same blocks that appear while in HDD, and can be mapped to the following blocks:

  1. Making Assumption / Formation of Hypothesis
  2. Build a Prototype / Minimum Viable Product (MVP)
  3. Execute / Run the Prototype
  4. Get Feedback / Observation

Now step 4 is the feedback loop that connects to step 1 making a cycle, thereby using the feedback from current iteration as the input to form the assumption for the next iteration.

Interestingly this means the HDD process always depends on outcomes rather than traditional outputs of any traditional process. The outcomes are kind of hints from the segment that can give direction to the design along the way and help in getting incremental validation of the vision by acting as “evidence” or the and more precisely they are the factors that help in “course correction” for the design. As the outcomes of the assumption act as pieces of evidence, it helps in making data-driven decisions.

You may ask, does that mean the design is reduced to quantitative factors which will act as evidence to support some of the designs? Now, here is the interesting aspect that helps to understand the approach — the feedback or the evidence can be either quantitative or qualitative in nature. And to avoid the risk of being limited to measurement-driven design, the qualitative perspective is provided equal footing in HDD approach. This makes a fit case for DesOps that can help in converging the technology with this philosophy to form required service design solution powered by machine learning, artificial intelligence and automation. The aspect of the actual implementation using technology is what we will be exploring in coming articles of this series, mostly while discussing the third dimension i.e. technology.

The very first step in HDD, i.e. “Making Assumption / Formation of Hypothesis” involves articulation of the assumption or the hypothesis. And this is the most important aspect of HDD, as the other steps depend on this. Typical hypothesis statement can be framed as per the following simplest form —

I think doing [this] will result in [that ].

There multiple variations to this that many professionals use in their area for HDD based research and design /development activities. Some add the factors such as the segment or the persona or the end user of the product, something like the following —

For [user / him/her ] I think doing [this] will result in [that ].

If you see the above keeps segment in a context that helps it keep focused on to specific persona, which thereby can lead to the user-centred design process. This is essentially labelled by many as a design hypothesis.

Some use additional factors of forming negation of the hypothesis by adding an attribute like whether this hypothesis is believed by him as true or false. To formulate a null hypothesis and thereby move on to define an alternate hypothesis (which is essentially a negation to the null hypothesis one craves to validate, but due to nature and structure or any metrics associated with that, it may not practically be possible to achieve that. So in such kind of cases the implicitly the state of belief is presented as another factor to take part in the validation process —

Because I think [this] is true, I think doing [this] will result in [that ].

I believe that any hypothesis statement can be cultivated from the bare-bones model of cause and effect being rendered as a formalized statement of “if …. then” or “when … then” kind of format. At least this gives a more practical approach to build a real-world HDD based system which is technically feasible and is the essence of any DesOps system.

The next important aspect in this regard is how to ensure that we are considering the qualitative aspect of the evidence, as discussed above. If we look at irrespective of the fact that there is a crowd of applications out there which claims to support the business through a data-informed approached, they are primarily a set of some variation between the extremes like A/B testing tools and data-driven analytics and data modelling based prediction systems. But if we notice with care at the core of HDD we found that the essence of HDD lies in making sense of the data and treat it as evidence so as to inject it to a UCD based process to fuel design or business decisions. Though coming up with a real-world HDD system would require similar tools and technologies of data-driven systems, but they will be supporting components to HDD based system. In this regard, the real HDD based full fledged system is literally non-existent as of today, while I am writing this article. In regards to DesOps, this makes a lot of difference, as most of the HDD frameworks out there are not 100% autonomous. Most of the implementation of HDD is mostly based on the work practices and methodologies, which is implemented depending on the need and feasibility. However, these are good enough when we use these, in context to the tools we gain from UCD, Lean models and the Design Thinking principles. But, it is interesting that the philosophies of DesOps, take it to the next level, making it autonomous and integrated with the over-arching feedback loop we have been referring many times.

To be continued… Keep tuned in.

 

(c) 2018, Samir Dash. All rights reserved.

Beta Testing in the Ever Changing World of Automation

(Apart from some details about my prototype in Beta Testing, this also explores the interesting definitions from ISO regarding quality that brings “reviews in context” that fundamentally lauds usability philosophies. (Originally first published at RedHat Blog in January 2018)

Beta testing is fundamentally all about the testing of a product performed by real users in a real environment. There are many tags we use to refer to the testing of similar characteristics, such as User Acceptance Testing (UAT), Customer Acceptance Testing (CAT), Customer Validation, and Field Testing (more popular in Europe). Whichever tag we use for these testing cases, the basic components are more or less the same. To discover and fix potential issues, this involves the user and front-end user interface (UI) testing, as well as the user experience (UX) related testing. This always happens in the iteration of the software development lifecycle (SDLC) where the idea has transformed into design and has passed the development phases, while the unit and integration testing has already been completed.

The beta stage in the product lifecycle management (PLM) is the ideal opportunity to hear from the target market and to plan for the road ahead.

As we zoom into this phase of testing it has a board spectrum of ranges. On one side is the Front-End or UI related testing involving UI functionality (Cosmetic, UI level Interaction and Visual look and feel). At the other end is the User Experience (UX), including user testing involving more from A/B (split) testing, hypothesis, user behavior tracking and analysis, heat maps, user flows and segment preference study or exploratory testing and feedback loops.

Beta testing relies on the popular belief that goodness will prevail, which defines the typical tools that carry out such tests. Examples are the shortening of beta cycles, reducing the time investment, increasing tester participation, improving the feedback loop and visibility, etc.

The Importance of Beta Testing

If we dive deeper into the factors behind the existence of tools from different angles, we find two major reasons that advocate the importance of beta testing:

1. Left-right brain analogy, which points to the overlap between humans and technology.

The typical belief is that the left-hand side of the brain mostly processes the logical thinking, while the right-hand side is more about the emotional thinking. Based on this popular analogy, when we map the different aspects involved in different stages of SDLC for a digital product across a straight line from left to right (refer to the diagram below), we will notice the logical and more human-centered aspects are divided by an imaginary line from the center. We will also notice the gradual progression of the emotional index for the components from left to right.

When we map these to the beta testing phase, we notice these right-hand components are predominant. As users of the products (like humans), we are more emotionally connected to such aspects of the product, which are validated or verified in a beta test. This makes beta testing one of the most important testing phases in any SDLC.

Another interesting point to note is that when we look from the traditional software approach to define “criticality”, the areas that are tested during user acceptance testing (UAT / Beta), mostly fall into Class 3 and 4 type of criticality. But because these touch the core human aspects, they become more important. This Youtube video (Boy Receives Enchroma Glasses From Father) helps to illustrate the importance of technology touching the human emotions. It was posted by a popular brand of glasses to demonstrate how they can correct colorblindness in real time for the end user.

Interestingly, this is an aspect of “accessibility”, which is typically covered during a beta test. Considering this video, the aspect of accessibility naturally raises the question about what we can do for this father and son as a tester, as a developer, or as a designer? And when we look at the stats, we find that the number of people the accessibility impacts is huge. One in every five people is challenged by some kind of disability. And unfortunately, some reports indicate that a majority of websites do not conform to the World Wide Web contortion’s (W3C) accessibility guidelines (in 2011 almost 98% of websites failed the W3C’s accessibility guideline).

This helps to demonstrate the human angle, which advocates why beta testing is important to ensure these aspects are validated and verified to ensure the target user needs are completely met.

2. A second reason for advocating the importance of beta testing is evaluating it from the international standards perspective (ISO/IEC 9126-4). This helps to define the difference between usability and quality.

The International Standards Organization (ISO) has been focused on the standards around quality versus usability over time. In 1998 ISO identified efficiency, effectiveness and satisfaction as major attributes of usability. In 1999 a quality model was proposed, involving an approach to measure quality in terms of software quality and external factors. In 2001 the ISO/IEC 9126-4 standard suggested that the difference between usability and the quality in use is a matter of context of use. ISO/IEC 9126-4 also distinguished external quality versus internal quality and defined related metrics. Metrics for external quality can be obtained only by executing the software product in the system environment for which the product is intended.

This shows that without usability/human computer interaction (HCI) in the right context, the
quality process is incomplete. The context referred to here is fundamental to a beta test where you have real users in a real environment, thereby making the case of the beta test stronger.

Beta Testing Challenges

Now that we know why beta testing is so very critical, let’s explore the challenges that are involved with a beta stage.

Any time standards are included, including ISO/IEC 9126, most of these models are static and none of them accurately describe the relationship between phases in the product development cycle and appropriate usability measures at specific project milestones. Any standard also provides relatively few guidelines about how to interpret scores from specific usability metrics. And specific to usability as a quality factor, it is worth noting that usability is that aspect of quality where the metrics have to be interpreted.

When we look at popular beta-testing tools of today, the top beta testing tools leave the interpretation to the customer or to the end-user’s discretion. This highlights our number one challenge in beta testing, which is how to filter out pure perception from the actual and valid issues and concerns brought forward.

As most of the issues are related to user testing (split testing and front-end testing), there is no optimized single window solution that is smart enough to handle this in an effective manner. Real users in the real environment are handicapped to comprehend all the aspects of beta testing and properly react. It’s all a matter of perspective and all of them cannot be validated with real data from benchmarks or standards.

The World Quality Report in 2015-16 Edition indicated that expectations from Beta testing is changing dramatically. It hinted that the customers are looking for more product insights through a reliable way to test quality and functionality, along with the regular usability and user testing in real customer facing environment.

It’s not only the Beta Testing, but more user-demand is also impacted by the rising complexities and challenges due to accelerated changes in the technology, development, and delivery mechanisms. The 2017-18 World Quality Report states that the test environment and test data continue to be an achilles heel for QA and Testing.   The challenges with testing in agile development are also increasing. There is now a demand for automation, mobility, and ubiquity, along with smartness to be implemented in the software quality testing. Many believe that the analytics-based automation solutions would be the first step in transforming to smarter QA and smarter test automation. While this true for overall QA and testing, this is also true for Beta Testing, which deals with the functional aspect of the product.

Let’s see where we stand today. If we explore popular beta testing solutions, we will get a big vacuum in the area where we try to benchmark the user’s need for more functional aspects, along with the usability and user testing aspects. Also, you can notice in the diagram below that there is ample space to play around with the smart testing scenario with the use of cognitive, automation, and machine learning.

(Note: Above figure shows my subjective analysis of the competitive scenario.)

Basically, we lack “smartness” and proper “automation” in Beta Testing Solutions.

Apart from all these, there are some more challenges that we can notice if we start evaluating the user needs from the corresponding persona’s viewpoint. For example, even when assuming that the functional aspect is to be validated, the end-user or the customer may have an inability to recognize it. The product owner, customer, or end-user are part of the user segment who may not be aware of the nuts and bolts of the technology involved in the development of the product they are testing to sign it off. It’s like the classic example of a customer who is about to buy a second-hand car and inspects the vehicle before making the payment. In most of the cases, he is paying the money without being able to recognize “What’s inside the bonnet!”. This is the ultimate use-case that advocates to “empower the customer”.

So, how do we empower the end user or the customer? The tools should support that in a way so that the user can have his own peace of mind while validating the product. Unfortunately, many small tools which try to solve some of those little issues to empower the user are scattered (example: Google Chrome extension that helps to analyze CSS and creates the report or an on-screen ruler that the user can use to check alignment, etc.). The ground reality is that there is no single-window extension/widgets based solution available. Also, not all widgets are connected. And those which are available, not all are comprehensible to the customer/end-user as almost all of them are either developer or tester centric. They are not meant for the customer without any special skills!

When we look at the automation solutions in testing as part of much Continous Integration (CI) and Continuous Delivery (CD), they are engaged and effective in mostly “pre-beta” stage of SDLC. Also, they require specific skills to run them. With the focus on DevOps, in many cases, the CI-CD solutions are getting developed and integrated with the new age solutions looking at the rising complexities of technology stacks, languages, frameworks, etc.. But most of them are for the skilled dev or test specialists to use and execute them. And this is something that does not translate well when it comes to Beta testing where the end-user or the customer or the “real user in real environment” are involved.

Assuming we can have all these automation features enabled in BETA, it still points to another limitation in the existing solutions. It’s because the employment of automation brings in its own challenge of “information explosion”, where the end user needs to deal with the higher volume of data from automation. With so much information, the user will struggle to get a consolidated and meaningful insight of the specific product context.   So what do we need to solve these challenges? Here is my view — we need smart, connected, single window beta testing solutions with automation that can be comprehensible to the end-users in a real environment without the help of the geeks.

For sometime since a last few years, I have been exploring these aspects for the ideal beta testing solution and was working on the model and a proof of concept called “Beta Studio”, representing the ideal beta testing solution, which should have all these —  Beta-Testing that utilizes data from all stages of SDLC and PLM along with the standards + specs and user testing data to provide more meaningful insights to the customer.  Test real applications in real environments by the real users. Customer as well as end-user centric. Test soft aspects of the application — Usability, Accessibility, Cosmetic, etc..  Be smart enough to compare and analyze these soft aspects of the application against functional testing data.

Use machine-learning & cognitive to make the more meaningful recommendation and not just dump info about bugs and potential issues. Here is an indicative vision of Beta Studio:

Mostly this vision of the ideal beta testing solution touches upon all the aspects we just discussed. It also touches upon all the interaction points of the different personas; e.g. customer, end-user, developer, tester, product owner, project manager, support engineer, etc.. It should cover the entire Product Life Cycle and utilize automation along with the machine learning components such as Computer Vision (CV) and Natural Language Processing (NLP). Then gathering this information to be processed by the cognitive aspect to generate the desired insights about the product and recommendations. During this process, the system will involve data from standards and specs along with the design benchmark generated from the inputs at the design phase of the SDLC, so that meaningful insights can be generated.

In order to see this vision translated into reality, what do we need? The following diagram hints about the six steps we need to take.

  1. First we should create the design benchmark from the information at the design stage that can be used in comparing the product features against metrics based on this design benchmark.
  2. Then automate and perform manual tracking of the product during runtime in real time and then categorize and collate this data.
  3. This involves creating features to support the user feedback cycle and user testing aspects (exploratory, split testing capabilities).
  4. Collect all standards and specifications on different aspects — e.g. Web Content Accessibility Guideline (WCAG) Section 508, Web Accessibility Initiative Specs ARIA, Design Principles, W3C Compliance, JS Standards, CSS Standards & Grids, Code Optimization Metrics Error codes & Specs, Device Specific Guidelines (e.g. Apple Human Interface Guideline) etc.
  5. Build the critical components such as Computer Vision and Natural Language Processing units which would process all the data collected in all these stages and generate the desired metrics and inferences.
  6. Build the unit to generate the model to map the data and compare against the metrics.
  7. The final step is to build the cognitive unit that can compare the data and apply the correct models and metrics to carry out the filtering of the data and generate the insights which can be shared as actionable output to the end-user/customer.

While experimenting for BetaStudio, I have explored different aspects and built some bare bone POCs. For example, Specstra is a component that can help create Design benchmark from design files.

With Specstra I was trying to address the issues related to the cosmetic aspect or visual look and feel. Typically when it comes to cosmetic issues, more than 30% are non-functional and mostly cosmetic. There is no reliable solution that helps in benchmarking these kind of issues against specific standards. One third of the issues found during the beta / UAT stages of testing are mostly cosmetic and alignment issues, including category 3 and 4 types. And these happen mostly because the two persona’s involved (developer and designer) have their own boundaries defined by a mythical fine line.

When a developer is in focus, roughly 45% of them are not aware of all the design principles employed or the heuristics of UX to be employed. Similarly, half of the designers are not aware of more than half of the evolving technological solutions about design.

And in 70% of the of the projects, we do not get detailed design specs to benchmark with. Detailing out a spec for design comes with a cost and required skills. In more than two-thirds of the cases of development there is the absence of detailed design with specs. Many of the designs are not standardized and most of them do not have clear and detailed specs. Design is carried out by different tools so it is not always easy to have a centralized place where all the designs info is available for benchmarking.

Specstra comes in handy to solve this. It is an Automation POC that is more like a cloud-based Visual Design Style Guide Generator from the third party design source files. This is a case where the user would like to continue using his existing Design tools like Photoshop/Sketch or Illustrator, PDF etc..

You can view the video of the demo here:

View the demo of the BetaStudio POC here:

I understand that reaching the goal of an ideal beta testing solution might require effort and will likely evolve over time. Rest assured, the journey has started for all of us to connect and explore how to make it a reality.

Originally published at the RedHat Blog at https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2018/01/05/beta-testing-automation/

 

 

 

 

DesOps: The Business Value Proposition

Each design is a proposed business solution which is essentially is a hypothesis. Any design process — as strives to get the answer or solution to a fundamental problem — essentially starts with the problem in mind and some assumptions in mind, which is mostly a hypothesis. And to solve the problem, with the assumed hypothesis or the business value in mind, the designer iterates and if he uses User-Centered Development (UCD) approaches, he would go into the cycle of Think – Make – Test cycle. And this implicit way of solving the issue creatively uses references to different aspects of business, namely :

  • The complete business offering
  • Customer orientation and service innovation for customer relationship
  • Business Infrastructure
  • Revenue Streams
  • Productivity and Cost control structures

As DesOps principles and practices have Hypothesis Driven Design & Development (HDD) and UCD process as its core components, it also refers to the same business value propositions. Implementing DesOps actually takes these into consideration and tries to use technology to improve the process around these.

If we refer to any standard business model frameworks such as Business Model Canvas, a template that is popularly used for developing and investigating every important aspect of the organization. The framework in such a template outlines investigations for areas such as key partners, key activities, key resources, value propositions, customer relationship, channels, customer services, cost structure and revenue streams, which always helps to understand and identify the core goals, strengths and priorities of the business that provides the context in which the UX has to be seen. This can be seen in the following equation: “Customer needs + Business context +Technological feasibility = Successful UX making the successful product”.

In a business model, we refer to UX when we plan a strategy for “Value Proposition”. In the typical Business model Canvas, value proposition involves areas like the following, which can be seen traced back to DesOps principles & practices.

  • Newness: In DesOps, this is associated with “Continous Discovery” and “Design Thinking” practices.
  • Performance: Improving performance by optimizing the process blocks through Agile & Lean methodologies through the implementation of automation through service design approach.
  • CustomizationDesOps implementation focuses on customizing the process blocks through service design approach and defining business process redesign/engineering.
  • Getting the Job Done”: This is fundamentally the result oriented approaches taken in DesOps which touches upon different aspects like roles, cohesive team play, removing wastage through Lean methodologies and the similar.
  • Design: This is core to DesOps, and is seen as the creative problem-solving.
  • Brand/ Status: Brand and Status is well associated with the feedback loops that include the real users in context and feeding the design process with continuous feedback including brand perception and related mental model of the user of the target segment.
  • Price: Though purely a market associated component, the price can be dramatically reduced through implementation of DesOps, as it focuses on reducing waste and improving efficiency through automation and process improvements
  • Cost Reduction: It is one of the fundamental components of ROI on DesOps in an organization. DesOps helps reducing cost through service design approach to optimize and redefine business process.
  • Risk Reduction: DesOps helps reducing ambiguity by the implementation of optimized process and automation powered by the feedback loop that touches all the roles and the aspects be it human or machine in context. This improves reliability and thereby reduces risk.
  • Accessibility: Through the implementation of Design Thinking, UCD model like contextual and participatory designs and continuous feedback loop, DesOps helps to ensure the accessibility factors are in consideration while iterating over a design.
  • ConvenienceUsability: Through its advocacy of UCD models and Design Thinking and integrated feedback loop, DesOps help in ensuring usability aspects in all design delivered.

From a product manager’s standpoint, the successful UX meant for a business must balance between the needs of the users and the feasibility of implementation of the UX solution within the business context, and all the practices and principles of DesOps converge towards this.

 

(c) 2018, Samir Dash. All rights reserved.

The 10 Practices of Design Operations (DesOps)

A method, procedure, process, or rule used in a particular field is typically defined as practice for that field. In last article, we discovered about the 10 guiding principles that drive the DesOps. No wonder the practices involved in DesOps, loud the same principles to the core. Note that we are still discussing the culture driven by DesOps / DesignOps, that is typically fuelled by these practices.

Here are the broad practices that drive the DesOps philosophies:

 

Download Poster: http://desops.io/2018/05/09/infographic-the-ten-practices-of-desops-aka-designops/

 

1. Design Thinking

This practice ensures that we employ the creative problem solving, the typical methodologies and tools of Design thinking. Here are some quick notes and list of methodologies and tools used in IBM version of it which anyway follows the fundamental principles of Design Thinking https://medium.com/eunoia-i-o/quick-guide-notes-on-the-ibm-design-thinking-78490d7433dd.

The typical tools of Design Thinking, such as Stakeholders map, Experience maps (As Isand To Be), Personae, Roadmap, MVP, Kano Modelling, Story Boarding, Priority Grid etc. are coupled with continuous practices defined in the following to implement the Continuous Loop of the Design Thinking practice that holds the DesOps philosophies.

2. User-centred Design (UCD) and Usability Design

Users (both the typical user / persona from UX angle and the segment from marketing/business context ) are at the core of DesOps. Any design solution generated fundamentally is an advocacy of the user needs and tries to direct the business goals to build upon this. The business goals are also in such cases are market specific and are based on the pulse of the segments driven by the user needs. You can have a quick note on UCD and usability-design here https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140702070557-9377042-usability-design-and-user-centered-design-ucd/. As UCD or Usability design focuses on the Iterative Design approach of User Centered System Design (UCSD) process this fundamentally contributes to DesOps goals.

As UCD supports growing product through iterative design that is also fuelled by all 3 models of design which contribute to typical Design Thinking as well as Lean UX models, namely:

  • Cooperative Design: This involves designers and users on an equal footing.
  • Participatory Design (PD): Inspired by Cooperative Design, focusing on the participation of users
  • Contextual Design: “Customer-Centered Design” in the actual context, including some ideas from Participatory Design.

And here are the steps we use while implementing UCD , irrespective of the above models we follow: All these UCD models involve more or less a set of activities grouped into the following steps mentioned below:

  • STEP 1 – Planning: in this stage the UCD process is planned and if needed customized. It involves understanding the business needs and setting up the goals and objectives of the UX activities. Also forming the right team for the UX needs and if needed hiring specialties fall into this step.
  • STEP 2 – User data collection and analysis: This step involves data collection through different applicable methodologies such as user interviews, developing personas, conducting scenarios, use-cases and user stories analysis, setting up measurable goals.
  • STEP 3 – Designing and Prototyping: This involves activities like card sorting, conducting IA, wireframing and developing prototyping.
  • STEP 4 – Content writing: this involves content refinement and writing for web and similar activities.
  • STEP 5 – Usability testing: This involves is a set of activities of conducting tests and heuristic evaluations and reporting to allow refinement of the product. However, Usability Testing can have its set of steps involving similar activities such as planning , Team forming, testing, review and data analysis and reporting.

And you will see all these naturally fall into the places while any DesOps is implemented.

3. Hypothesis-Driven Design/Development (HDD) & Data-driven Decisions making

The DesOps story remains incomplete without referring to one of its key practices that are Hypothesis-driven – development (HDD), which certainly contributes to the service design like DesOps, that brings possibilities of changes to inculcate design thinking, innovation and organizational changes. It also promotes the lifecycle methods and adjusts them to ensure that integrated work-flow and work-culture is established that can make the best use of data-driven decision making by running multiple early-stage experiments (synonymous with what we are trying to achieve through continuous feedback loop and prototyping) and gathering insights from their outcomes (and not just output!). Another interesting thing is that this advocates the use of UCD approaches as it focuses on making an assumption, running experimenting and validating them with measurable data, and thereby taking some action based on the same.

Will elaborate on HDD driven methodologies in context to DesOps as we move in this series of articles.

4. Agile / Iterative Life Cycle

There are several challenges in integrating UX design and related activities into a typical agile software development lifecycle process. The most common problem is typically “ finding a balance between up-front interaction design and integrating interaction design with iterative coding with the aim of delivering working software instead of early design concepts”. This happens mostly because typical pure SDLC approaches primarily aim at “efficient coding tactics together with project management and team organization instead of usability engineering”.As Agile is more “a way of thinking about creating software products’ rather than being a specific process or methodology hints at the challenges of UX integration into it as integrating user research and UX design with agile, is itself an “agile antipattern”.The very idea of SDLC is a process for developing software, traditionally never kept the “user” into a focus, or event kept any scope for methodologies that try to bring any component that is not considered as a native ingredient of the process of creating a software product. The focus was always the “cost, scope, and schedule” that drive any traditional SDLC models including Agile. And sure enough, this typically gives rise to the challenges for UX integration into any SDLC as project managers never try to upset the balance of these three by reducing costs, tightening deadlines, and adding features in the specification. To know more about the typical challenges we face while implementing design / UX into Agile SDLC read my earlier article here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140706143027-9377042-challenges-in-ux-integration-with-different-sdlc-models/

However, there ways to mend this gaps between process driven life cycle models such as Agile model — one of such is to implement usability design model (we discussed that as a practice of DesOps above). Usability process supplements to any software development life cycle at various stages, as is not a complete product development process as it does not output the final product at the end of the process cycle. One such solution is reflected in below diagram :

And it is interesting to see that each cycle in such solution is actually contributing to a continuous cycle of Conceptualize – Design – Build – Test that aligns nicely with DesOpsprinciples and other practices.

5. Lean UX Approach

The Lean UX practice focuses on the Lean philosophies that focus primarily on reducing waste from the process and provide ways to simplify and expedite the delivery keeping the quality intact or enhanced. Interestingly the Lean UX is based on the 3 foundations which are also part of the DesOps practices list we are discussing:

  • Design Thinking: This foundation upholds the concept that “every aspect of a business can be approached with design methods” and gives “designers permission and precedent to work beyond their typical boundaries”.
  • Agile Software Development: Core values of Agile are the key to Lean UX.
  • Lean Startup method: Lean Startup uses a feedback loop called “build-measure-learn” to minimize project risk and gets teams building quickly and learning quickly

No practice used in Lean UX is something new. Rather it is “built from well-understood UX practices”. Many of the techniques used over the time in various UX process and have the practical usability even today have been packaged properly in Lean UX. So the following foundation pillars of this also supports DesOps as inherited from this practice:

  • Cross-Functional Teams: Specialists from various disciplines come together to form a cross-functional team to create the product. Such a team typically consists of Software engineering, product management, interaction design, visual design, content strategy, marketing, and quality assurance (QA).
  • Small, Dedicated, Collocated: Keep your teams small—no more than 10 total core people as keeping small team has the benefit of small teams comes down to three words: communication, focus, and camaraderie. It is easier to manage the smaller team as keeping track of status report, change management and learning.
  • Progress = Outcomes, Not Output: The focus should be on business goals which are typically are the “outcomes”, rather than the output product/system or service.
  • Problem-Focused Teams:“A problem-focused team is one that has been assigned a business problem to solve, as opposed to a set of features to implement”.
  • Removing Waste: This is one of the key ingredients of Lean UX which is focused on “removal of anything that doesn’t lead to the ultimate goal” so that the team resource can be utilized properly.
  • Small Batch Size: Lean UX focuses on “notion to keep inventory low and quality high”.
  • Continuous Discovery: “Regular customer conversations provide frequent opportunities for validating new product ideas”
  • GOOB: The New User-Centricity: GOOB stands for “getting out of the building” — meeting-room debates about user needs won’t be settled conclusively within your office. Instead, the answers lie out in the marketplace, outside of your building.
  • Shared Understanding: The more a team collectively understands what it’s doing and why, the less it has to depend on secondhand reports and detailed documents to continue its work.
  • Anti-Pattern: Rock-stars, Gurus, and Ninjas: Team cohesion breaks down when you add individuals with large egos who are determined to stand out and be stars. So more efforts should on team collaboration.
  • Externalizing Your Work: “Externalizing gets ideas out of teammates’ heads and on to the wall, allowing everyone to see where the team stands”.
  • Making over Analysis: “There is more value in creating the first version of an idea than spending half a day debating its merits in a conference room”.
  • Learning over Growth: “Lean UX favours a focus on learning first and scaling second”.
  • Permission to Fail: “Lean UX teams need to experiment with ideas. Most of these ideas will fail.The team must be safe to fail if they are to be successful”.
  • Getting Out of the Deliverables Business: “The team’s focus should be on learning which features have the biggest impact on the their customers. The artefacts the team uses to gain that knowledge are irrelevant.”

You can read more in one of my articles here:https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140710010240-9377042-lean-ux-another-agile-ux/?

6. Fail-Fast through Prototyping

Typically a Fail-Fast is about immediately reporting any condition that is likely to indicate a failure. Also, Fail-Fast allows gathering early stage feedback that serves as an input for the continuous UCD model which helps bring up solutions to the design issues using such input and thereby minimizes the risk of product failure in the hand of users or in the market. This is also a philosophy that aligns to the Lean Startup methodology and accelerates innovation as it encourages taking early stage risk. Typically the startup cultures undertake bold experiments to determine the long-term viability of a product or strategy, rather than proceeding cautiously and investing years in a doomed approach. In service design, this helps to improve the processes to make use of systems that support Lean methodologies and model. The great part is that this in DesOps while getting combined with UCD processes, provides options to run short and quick UCD iterative cycles of Think – Make – Break kind of model.

Prototype plays a crucial role in UCD models to achieve Fail-Fast and thereby ensuring early feedback on the design is received that can contribute to the evolution of the product. Different fidelity of prototypes is used in order to ensure that the target experience can be tested.

7. Continuous Discovery

Continuous Discovery is primaily involved with the conceptualization stage of the product lifecycle. This practice mostly is driven factors like

  • User focus: The goals of the activity, the work domain or context of use, the users’ goals, tasks and needs should control the development.
  • Active user involvement: Representative users should actively participate, early and continuously throughout the entire development process and throughout the system life cycle.
  • Simple design representations: The design must be represented in such ways that it can be easily understood by users and all other stakeholders.
  • Explicit and conscious design activities: The development process should contain dedicated design activities.

This practice, however, is not just limited to conceptualization stage, but organically is part of the evaluation and build stages as the outcomes from such stages of life cycle, it gets the input of feedbacks and evaluation results which aid in the discovery of the solution through the design process.

8. Continuous builds and delivery

This practice focuses on continuous design delivery that ensures that the DesOps sustains the lifecycle and supports iterative UCD cycles. This involves the process that supports the design of the solution which thereby contributing to the system development that is iterative and incremental. The early part of life cycles involving such practice typically gains life from prototyping which is used to visualize and evaluate ideas and design solutions in cooperation with the users.

So the factors in this practices are :

  • Evolutionary systems development: The systems development should be both iterative and incremental.
  • Prototyping: Early and continuously, prototypes should be used to visualize and evaluate ideas and design solutions in cooperation with the users.

9. Integrated & incremental testing

Evaluation and getting the feedback from all stages of the lifecycle is key to any DesOpsimplementation, therefore integrated testing (including usability testing) in an incremental fashion is what that plays a stronger role among all the practices. This actually draws from the UCD models running a User Centered System Design (UCSD) approach. As UCD experts help in benchmarking usability tests popularly known as “summative evaluations” that evaluates the performance of the system /product developed on several grounds. The metrics of this test is typically based on the “error rate for users as they use the system”, the “time it takes to attain proficiency performing a task”, and the “time it takes to perform a task once proficiency has been attained”. So the factor that drives the practice is —

  1. Evaluate use in context: Baseline usability goals and design criteria should control the development.

Note that the key here is that all the testing should support evaluations in context. In the real context of use, getting the data is what makes this effective and thereby making DesOpsmore fruitful.

(Fig – Source: Re-imagining Beta Testing in the Ever-Changing World of Automationhttps://medium.com/eunoia-i-o/re-imagining-beta-testing-in-the-ever-changing-world-of-automation-3579ac418007 )

The ISO standard also defines Quality process where context plays the major role. And interestingly Usability testing and HCI aspects are all driven by context. Read one of of my articles on how context plays a critical role in testing and usability, which also narrates an experiment named BetaStudio here – https://medium.com/eunoia-i-o/re-imagining-beta-testing-in-the-ever-changing-world-of-automation-3579ac418007 .

10. Service Design on an Integrated Feedback-Loop Model

The integrated feedback loop is actually more than getting testing reports. This practice ensures that the feedback flows from any point to any point as needed, may it be from stakeholder to Designers, or End-Users to Developer, Testers to Designers or in any path that flows from one persona to the other. Also, this includes the service design that helps to implement the DesOps which ensures the information, as well as the feedback, is flowing seamlessly even including from and to the systems and different roles. This certainly uses service design employing recent technologies like Automation, Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence etc.

Hope this article was helpful. Keep tuning in for the next parts of this article series. Before moving on to next points on Culture of DesOps, we will be looking into a Business Model Canvas and try to see how DesOps fits in. Do share the words.

 

 

(c) 2018, Samir Dash. All rights reserved.

The 10 Principles Driving DesOps Culture


(Originally first published on April 17, 2018 at  https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/desops-next-wave-design-part-6-10-principles-driving-its-samir-dash/  )


As pointed out in the last article, the dimension ‘Culture’ has at the hindsight 3 life-lines, namely

i. Principles & Practices

ii. Cultural Shift towards Lean Philosophies 

iii. The way the team works (Mostly Design team but not excluding the intra-team work-culture)

In the current article, we will be focusing on the Principles that drive the DesOps philosophies. Broadly, the DesOps can be seen based on 10 commandments or the guiding principles which help set the goals —

 

Download Poster: http://desops.io/2018/05/08/infographic-the-ten-commandments-of-desops/

 

1. Implementing DesOps is to follow service design methodologies.

In reality, DesOps is the most evolved service design methodology, that touches upon all the different roles involved in a product lifecycle starting from conceptualization till the point product being used by the consumers. Therefore, DesOps implementation should establish the best practices for designing services according to both the needs of customers and the competencies and capabilities of service providers.

2. The feedback loop should cut across the product lifecycle

Ensure the requirements are fed into the DevOps cycle through feedback loop seamlessly so that the adjustment of the requirements can be done based on the feedback loop in the design stage that is also iterative and in the agile sprint loops. The requirements formulation is one of the core activities of design.And the requirements should be able to adjust based on the feedback that typically comes from means that cut across design as well as the development -test-deployment-production stages. So it involves the feedback from the large part of the delivery-deployment track, which is fundamentally DevOps impacted process areas. And when continuous integration and delivery (CI & CD) are part of the DevOps implementation, the continuous feedbacks that pours from various stages of DevOps should be addressed in an agile as well as iterative design stage, where these feedback fuel the design decisions to adjust requirements ignorer to meet the user as well as market needs. It is therefore critical that the DesOps implementation must follow the principle of completing the full circle of feedback loop that would cut across both designs as well as the dev-deploy-production stages – i.e. the complete SDLC and use it as an input for Design.

3. Empower stakeholders for better decision making — Hypothesis and Data-driven decision making for design and development

Many decisions are taken for a product based on the experience and the gut-feel of the stakeholders that impacts the product. The design – the creative problem solving – gets impacted by this as in real world, design decisions are always biased by the stakeholder’s view of the product and the market. A true DesOps should enable the stakeholder to take decisions based on a more data-driven way. Typical A/B testing, Hypothesis-Driven Development approach and analytics-driven decision making always help the stakeholder to evaluate the options and it guides him to take the more pragmatic decisions by reducing his baseness from his pre-conceptualised version of the product, user, and market. True DesOps, aspires to a world where decisions are taken by validating the data against the postulates that impacts the design as well as the success of the product itself in the hands of users and market.

4. Enable Design Thinking in the team

When we broadly speak about design, we do mean the core essence that is about creative problem solving which transcends beyond the typical professional design practices such as social context and business. Because of this, the Design Thinking strategies as solution-focused thinking fuels innovation and in today’s world, it is a popular approach that is employed in communities and organizations.

Many organizations, like IBM, KPMG etc. Have been improving the Design frameworks around the core concept of design thinking to come up with design strategies that would work with product life cycles and project management processes supporting Agile and Iterative approaches. For example, IBM Design Thinking (here is a quick guide https://medium.com/eunoia-i-o/quick-guide-notes-on-the-ibm-design-thinking-78490d7433dd  )

However, in many angles, all these versions of Design Thinking fail flat to impact the final deliverable products in a quick paced agile environment powered by continuous integration and delivery track. The workshops of such Design Thinking sessions do provide innovative outputs, but when it comes to implementations, the sync between these and the final MVP that goes out of the delivery track, is lost and in most of the cases the stakeholders feel that despite the investment into the design thinking approaches, the expected level of outcome in delivery is not met and in many cases changes in requirement in the middle, too many iterations leading to over budgeting, mismatch of skill set and resources requirements to the initial planning work and the feasibility aspects were blamed for the inferior quality of delivery in contrast to the grand outcome from the Design Thinking.

Some years back, I was part of a large UX team of a Software Conglomerate, where I practiced their version of the Design Thinking framework. And during many workshops with major customers, and also from casual discussions with some of the stakeholders and Design Thinking practicenors, I realised that though many of our design thinking workshops were successful and were received by the clients with excitement and sense of achievement, this in many cases died down after a few months of implementation happened over fast paced agile delivery modes, as the translation of the great solutions that came out from the design thinking sessions, didn’t actually live up to the expectations due to too many changes in requirements happened because of feasibility, resource management, technology and similar issues.

For me, the takeaway from there was that in fast-paced delivery track, the feedback loop must be connected across the design stages to be reviewed at the same pace to ensure that the overall speed of the delivery with quality remains intact. In many cases, because of the fact the issues that popped up during the implementation stages, were never efficiently part of the Design Thinking sessions of the next iteration or design cycle that runs, it was not effective in coming out more practical and pragmatic design solutions and make the necessary adjustments to the requirements. And in such cases the DevOps even when efficiently implemented, the lagging and relatively slow churning-outs from the Design Thinkings, the overall delivery gets impacted thereby resulting into inferior quality MVP than that of the envisioned one. As the Design and Development are two wheels of the bicycle that the product is riding on, even if the Dev wheel is made efficient by implementing the best possible DevOps, the overall pace and efficiency of the cycle is reduced and is equal to the other lagging wheel i.e. Design.

To overcome this, one of the core principles of DesOps is to empower Design Thinking to make it more efficient in a fast-paced DevOps enabled delivery process, thereby making it the best fit case for the organizations to adopt.

5. Advocate Lean Methodologies and Agile Philosophies

All “Lean” models typically focus on reducing waste in a process by removing it from the value chain of the usability process. One of the key goals of DesOps is about taking proactive measures in reducing waste and fundamentally support tries to bring the practical implementations of it. Therefore, DesOps, at the core advocates, Lean philosophies like that we see in Lean UX models. Along with the fact that Lean UX itself is based on 3 basic principles like “Design Thinking”, “Agile Software Development” and “Lean Startup methods” like “build – measure – learn”, it is an organic part of in DesOps philosophies.

6. Translate User-Centered Design into an actual process that can be used on the ground

DesOps supports User-Centered Design (UCD) process in which “the needs, wants and limitations of end-users of a product are given extensive attention at each stage”. Basically, in DesOps, the focus is same as on any optimized UCD process, where most of the priority is on understanding the behavioral aspect of the user interacting so that the user’s learning curve in using the system can be evaluated in order to optimize and reduce it. As DesOps, emphasizes on optimizing the product around “how users can, want or need to use the product, rather than forcing the users to change the behavior to accommodate the product”, it loads the philosophies of typical UCD model. So DesOps inherits the following factors from UCD, namely —

  1. Needs of Users
  2. Limitations of Users
  3. Preference of Users
  4. Business objectives of the Product. 

7. Cohesive play in the cross-functional team— designer, stakeholders and developers into the team play

As DesOps advocates LeanUX, it inherits one key attributes from Lean UX, which is about cross-functional team-play. Typically the Lean UX advocates that specialists from various disciplines should come together to co-create the product. Such team traditionally comprises of roles in software engineering, product management, interaction design, visual design, content strategy, marketing and quality assurance or testing disciplines. DesOps fundamentally enables this in bring these diverse roles to the same page and improves productivity through improving feedback loop and communication and providing a train of outcomes of the product development track that helps in “continuous discovery” and validation of product requirements and ideas.

8. Technology decisions should be guided by lowering the boundaries between roles and automation to reduce waste and repetitive jobs that work for the product and project.

Perhaps the biggest visible attribute of DesOps is the technology aspect, and the basic principle around technology is about the technology decision making. This is one of the most critical and impacting principles, as the right decision making for choosing the correct technology that will enable or help implement the most effective DesOps for the target organization/team. As DesOps involves the workflows, that touches the different aspects of Software Development Life Cycle and as the goal of DesOps is to achieve scale, the tracking, and traceability of workflows and responsibilities involved from different team members, technology, and tools employed to make it possible are carefully selected to meet the specific design culture that was redesigned with the re-engineered processes and workflows. Employment of automation, machine learning, and artificial intelligence plays a key role in the context of the technology selection to aid the DesOps implementation as well as improving the case for it to play a complementary role for DevOps to make the full-circle. We will elaborate on this aspect in details in coming article of the series.

Back in 2014-15, in one of my old exploration into visual design prototype called Specstra,I was exploring the possibilities to remove repetitive manual work of draftsmanship in the creation of visual design specs or style guide (part of static design systems) involving automation the process to reduce the efforts from days to just 2-3 minutes. It used standard design file formats including properitry ones like Photoshop (.PSD), Illustrator (.AI) and PDF, as input to generate completely detailed pixel perfect style guide with annotations and target resolution and device screen density specific specifications that can be used by the development team to create screens. You can read about this story at IBM Design Blog at https://medium.com/design-ibm/specstra-experimenting-with-automation-in-design-industry-4641c0b4244d or watch the video below :

(Video – In my experimental prototype Specstra the attempt was made to bring automation to visual design process to reduce repetitive manual tasks. )

9. Redesigning and re-engineering the Processes

Optimised and re-designed processes are key to reduce waste and remove repetition, At the same time lower boundaries between roles. Broadly the processes that are redesigned in a DesOps implementation include strategy and workflows for reducing wastage. Any repetitive blocks are removed or replaced with the ones that provide quick turnaround time for design deliverables as well as the access to all-around feedback -loops across the lifecycle including development, deployment areas. The goals of improvement of processes also include lowering boundary among different roles to enable a cross-functional team to quickly iterate and produce design outputs which can be fed into DevOps thread in the cycle. Also, process improvements include automation focus along with workflows for traceability and tracking and preparing benchmark data and validating the feedbacks and product performance against them in a seamless way. Also, alongside the focus of the process redesign as part of DesOps include the areas to customize and complement workflows to the existing SDLC if required, that is in the process where possible e.g. Agile, Iterative and Lean models.

10. Enable reviews based on data-driven benchmarks.

A DesOps implementation should support benchmarking and validating against those benchmarks for design as well as implementation aspects. You might have noticed, that the feedback-loop is fundamental to the DesOps philosophies. And you might have noticed that in the previous principles, most of them directly or indirectly pave the way for integrated feedback-loop that helps to enable faster delivery track for an efficient and productive product delivery with the tint of innovation. So, it is critical for the DesOps as a service design must make ways for benchmarking the various attributes of the product and the delivery method itself that contributes to the speed and agility so that the feedback loop can make good use of these to validate and support a faster and informed decision making. In one of my recent explorations into beta-testing for RedHat’s QE CampX and Idea Incubation prog, I had focused on this aspect and tried to come up with a prototype called BetaStudio,that tried to address how to create benchmark for attributes which are more on the creative side and fall in the design stages of a product’s lifecycle, and thereby using some kind of mechanism to validate based on such benchmarks. Read about Beta Studio at https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2018/01/05/beta-testing-automation/

The above diagram shows the high-level vision of BetaStudio that used benchmarking of design aspects which were used at a later stage (mostly the track covered by DevOps) to validate the feedback most of which were generated by automation. In later articles, I will be elaborating on this aspect in details.

(Video – In my experimental prototype BetaStudio the benchmark based review and feedback loop was explored )

While implementing DesOps in the organization if we contradict any of these principles, it would result in a half-baked design operation that would not help in achieving the goal. In one of the organizations I was part of in recent past, some attempts were made to improve the design process. And in the effort to make the design team’s activities streamlined, certain design tools licenses were bought and the team members are asked to follow certain fixed process and semi-automation plugins etc. Along with this an earlier design system was revamped to provide commonly used patterns and widgets to be used. In the name of improving the process Agile model was cut-pasted and was followed. But over the period it was noticed that the overall efficiency dropped in the team. The interesting part was even though the steps to improve the design work culture implemented some of the key principles we discussed, and missed many, which led to a failed process re-engineering. The whole agile process implemented was designed to make the design teamwork as a separate entity to match the organization structure of the team as a separate business unit in order to ensure easy budgeting and determine responsibilities of the team across multiple projects running. If we review this case, we can find that the putting the design team’s own process delivery cycle didn’t contribute to the overall product delivery cycle. It conflicted with the DesOps principles like Cohesive Team-play and supporting Lean model which advocated the arching DesOps should encompass and cut-across all the teams responsible for the product and not just the design team. Also making design team as a single entity, put it into a silo because of which the feedback loop was not effective, thereby it impacted the translation of UCD philosophies.

Well, we will elaborate on similar cases in upcoming articles of this series sometime later. Now as we covered principles, let’s see in the next article, what are the practices that contribute to an idea DesOps. Hope you enjoyed the DesOps journey!

 

 

(c) 2018, Samir Dash. All rights reserved.