Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘User Interface’ Category

Brand Equity,Value, Promise, Experience, Authenticity….?

From brandsofdesire.com

Daryl Person clears the deck with some simple concepts with handles:

We’re all someone’s customer, and we all love when something about a brand makes us feel great. Your customers are no different. If you take time to think through how you can connect with them authentically, personally, and meaningfully, your efforts will be rewarded with affection and loyalty.

No surprises here – much of the same has been said and written about it.

The interesting bit about her message is the further drill down to where she discovers a vein:

Essentially, you as a brand have to act like—and be like—a human….if the humans who represent the brand act like humans and friends, then that’s how customers will see you. They’ll defend you when you have hard times, celebrate when you accomplish something, and thank you for being a good brand.

And you hit the gold right and proper, Daryl avers, is when you create those genuine moments of great personal experience for your customers.

More about it and some thoughts on ‘how to’ she shares here.

End

Read Full Post »

“Good service design is important for the overall user experience. Yet, it is even more important at the end of an experience (or exposure to a brand) due to the Peak-End Rule and Recency Effect. Placing the business needs before the user’s needs, breaking the user’s flow and not addressing a user’s need at the point of their need are primary culprits in designing a poor experience.”

Chris Kiess writes in his article “Service Design — How to Fail at the Checkout and Ruin Your User’s End Experience” appearing here.

While he talks about “8 ways I see retail merchants like Target, Walmart or Meijer fail in service design as it relates to the end of the customer experience and the final impression they make with consumers,” there’s an interesting snippet about a negative perception and how it could be turned around.

First about the perception:

“The biggest faux pas of superstores is having too many checkout registers and not enough cashiers. Most people would probably not be concerned during the holidays (or any other time) if they sauntered over to the checkout and there were ten cashiers at all ten registers with lines behind each. This would give the customer the illusion the store is busy and they are doing everything they can to help customers move through the checkout process. But, what generally happens instead is you walk up to the checkout area after finding everything you need and there are thirty registers with only five in service. This, I cannot understand. On the surface, it gives the impression the store could do more. After all, there are twenty-five more registers and surely they could open one or two more of them. It boggles the mind that a store would feel the need to install thirty checkout lanes and never use them all at one time.”

He suggests:

“This is largely about human perception. The simple fix is to cut the number of registers installed and use a greater percentage of them during busy times. This would give the impression (and shape perceptions) a greater effort is being employed to move people through the lines.”

A thought:

The suggestion could still leave at times a few unattended counters. So why not have counters that could be rolled in from back of the store on need basis and wheeled away when done? Just as many as needed, leaving no visibly unattended counters at any time.

Also could the stores do like the airlines doing in-line check-in with staff going around with their special devices? Of course, it needs some adaption to allow for handling the purchases in the cart.

End

Image from here.

Read Full Post »

End

Read Full Post »

It’s not what you think.

<<an extract>>

We watch TED talks for a variety of reasons: to learn something; to feel inspired; to get motivated; to stay informed; to be astounded; to laugh.

Above all, we want to be enriched. We want to be a better person for having watched.

But putting together a presentation that does that–helps someone become a better person–is easier said than done. Most of us would agree that on balance, most talks aren’t good. The ones that are truly great stand out.

According to public speaking expert Neil Gordon, this is because most of us tend to stuff our talks full of information. You’re taught to use acronyms, have steps and processes, fill your latest marketing deck with complicated charts … and so you do.

Gordon says this is a mistake. “Most people think the reason why the most-viewed TED talks have been seen so many millions of times is because they’re the most jaw-dropping, fascinating, ingenious, inspiring, or funniest talks,” Gordon offers. “But it’s not actually any of those things.” So what is it? What is the secret sauce?

<<end of extract>>

Melanie Curtin reveals it all here.

End

Image: from intheblack.com

Read Full Post »

and the Reason Why is Eye-Opening.

Seven hours of video, 70,000 words in the combined transcript like a 200-page book were analyzed. And a single unavoidable takeaway emerged, specially to be noted by those making presentations, only strengthening what we knew about all along.

Read all of Bill Murphy Jr’s imaginative analysis and inescapable conclusions
here.

End

Image: AIESEC India Learning Academy

Read Full Post »

” We’ve all sat in those presentations. A speaker with a stream of slides full of text, monotonously reading them off as we read along. We’re so used to it we expect it. We accept it. We even consider it ‘learning’. As an educator I push against ‘death by PowerPoint’ and I’m fascinated with how we can improve the way we present and teach. The fact is we know that PowerPoint kills. Most often the only victims are our audience’s inspiration and interest. This, however, is the story of a PowerPoint slide that actually paved the way for the death of seven people…”

Read it here.

End

Read Full Post »

ux-humor-jokes-and-funny-quotes-2-638

 

End

Read Full Post »

From Clean Laffs here:

should-keep-in-your-fridge

Frozen Food Labeling

I have changed my system for labeling homemade freezer meals. I used to carefully note in large clear letters, “Meatloaf” or “Pot Roast” or “Steak and Vegetables or “Chicken and Dumplings” or “Beef Pot Pie.”

However, I used to get frustrated when I asked my husband what he wanted for dinner because he never asked for any of those things. So, I decided to stock the freezer with what he really likes.

If you look in my freezer now you’ll see a whole new set of labels. You’ll find dinners with neat little tags that say: “Whatever,” “Anything,” “I Don’t Know,” “I Don’t Care,” “Something Good,” or “Food.” Now no matter what my husband replies with when I ask him what he wants for dinner, I know that it is there waiting.

End

 

 

Source: Image from wwonline.net

Read Full Post »

paul-heckel_MLv1ZNBKs

 

End

Read Full Post »

An interesting story from James Lawther:

…During the second world war over 60 million people were killed.  That was roughly 3% of the world-wide population.  It was a hazardous time.

Among the hardest hit were the bomber crews.  The Eighth Air Force suffered half of all the U.S. Air Force’s casualties.  The British fared as badly.  The chances of surviving the war as a member of the RAF’s bomber command were only marginally better than even.

If flying bombing raids wasn’t dangerous enough, landing when you returned home was also fraught with danger.  Pilots of the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress had a series of runway crashes, accidentally retracting the landing gear when they touched down.

…Accident investigators blamed these incidents on pilot (or human) error.  There was no obvious mechanical failure.

It wasn’t only Flying Fortresses that had the problem.  There were stories of pilots of P-17 Thunderbolts and B-25 Mitchells making the same mistake.

Nobody would deliberately retract the landing gear when they were still hurtling across the tarmac.  Why the pilots did so was anybody’s guess.  Perhaps the pilot’s attention wandered when they realized they were almost home.

…The authorities asked Alphonse Chapanis,  a military psychologist to explain the behavior.  He noticed that the accidents only happened to certain planes and not others.  There were thousands of C-47 transport planes buzzing about.  Their pilots never suffered from such fatal inattention.

After inspecting the cockpits of the different planes the cause became clear.  On B-17s the controls for the flaps and undercarriage were next to one another.  They also had the same style of handle.   Pilots who retracted the undercarriage when the wheels were on the ground were actually trying to retract the flaps. They just pulled the wrong lever.

In the C-47 the two controls were very different and positioned apart from each other.

The solution: Once he identified the cause Chapanis developed an equally simple solution.  Circular rubber disks were stuck to the levers for the undercarriage and triangles were stuck to the levers for the flaps.  When a pilot touched the rubber, he felt the difference and the crashes stopped…The pilots were well aware of which lever to pull.  It was “human error” that caused the mistake.  But laying the blame on the pilots wasn’t ever going to solve that.

14268987360_480684fa56_o-400x320

We all make mistakes.  It is in our nature.  Don’t fight it, fix it.

 

End

 

The original post – unfortunately no way to reblog – may be read here.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »