Consumer Psychology and the Ecommerce Checkout

Participatory Observation

via UXmatters http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2014/01/participatory-observation.php

By Jim Ross

Published: January 13, 2014

“In the field of UX design research, we’ve borrowed and adapted many research methods from anthropology to enable us to better understand people and their needs. But wehaven’t adopted one signature method of anthropology: participant observation.”

In the field of UX design research, we’ve borrowed and adapted many research methods from anthropology to enable us to better understand people and their needs. But we haven’t adopted one signature method of anthropology: participant observation. When we go into the field to observe people performing tasks, we remain outside observers, asking questions and taking notes, but not getting involved in their activities ourselves.

Anthropologists and sociologists often practice participant observation, in which they join a group as a participating member to get a first-hand perspective of the group and their activities. Instead of observing as an outsider, they play two roles at once—objective observer and subjective participant. Participating in the group gives them the ability to experience events in the same way other group members experience them. These are the types of studies that probably come to mind when you think about anthropology or sociology—for example, an anthropologist goes to live with a tribe in the Amazon rainforest or a sociologist moves into a housing project to learn about poverty. These are participant observation studies.

The term participant observation may be confusing to those of us in user experience. We think of participants as the people who we study, and we think of observation as the way we study them. So to us, participant observation sounds like what we do already—observing participants. But in this case, participant means that the researcher is an active participant in an activity while observing it.

Does Participant Observation Make Sense for Design Research?

“Performing activities with the group gives the researcher greater empathy, as well as a much more in-depth understanding of the group members and their activities.”

Participant observation studies have provided some of the most valuable insights in anthropology and sociology. So why haven’t we adopted participant observation in design research? If we look at its advantages and disadvantages, perhaps we can determine whether we can adapt this method to the needs of design research projects.

What Are Its Advantages?

In comparison to pure observation studies that don’t involve any participation by the researcher, participant observation provides the following advantages:

• Participating in a group as a new member requires the researcher to learn about the group and its activities in much greater detail than when simply observing and taking notes.
• Performing activities with the group gives the researcher greater empathy, as well as a much more in-depth understanding of the group members and their activities.
• As a new group member, the researcher often notices things that group members take for granted, such as group rules and norms.
• Group members often feel more comfortable and act more naturally when a researcher participates in their activities rather than just sitting back and observing silently.
• As a group member, the researcher spends more time with the participants and gets to observe them in more varied situations.
• Participating eliminates the formality of scheduled research sessions, in which participants expect to answer questions or demonstrate specific tasks. The researcher is simply with the group all day, observing and participating in whatever happens.

What Are Its Disadvantages?

“Active involvement in the group can cause the researcher to lose objectivity and may lead to bias.”

The following disadvantages of participant observation have probably prevented its wider adoption in design research:

• It can be very time consuming.
• It generates a vast amount of data.
• By participating in activities, the researcher can inadvertently influence the other participants’ behavior.
• Active involvement in the group can cause the researcher to lose objectivity and may lead to bias.
• It can take a long time for the group to accept the researcher as a member and become comfortable with him or her.
• It’s difficult to participate, observe, and take notes at the same time.
• The researcher has to be careful not to cross the you-are-not-the-user line and start designing for his or her own wants and needs.
• The need for specialized domain knowledge makes it difficult to participate in some groups. For example, it might be easy to participate in a group of fast-food workers, but it wouldn’t be easy for most researchers to join a group of molecular biologists.

For What Types of Projects Is Participant Observation Appropriate?

“Participant observation is useful whenever the goal is to study a user group and how they use a product, system, or service whose use consumes a large portion of their time.”

Participant observation is useful whenever the goal is to study a user group and how they use a product, system, or service whose use consumes a large portion of their time. Therefore, it’s ideal for service design, process redesign, and business application design projects. It’s especially useful in learning about groups of employees, their activities, the systems they use, and the services they perform. For example, participant observation would be a great method for learning about

• customer-service personnel working in a call center
• nurses in an urgent-care center
• fast-food workers and the customer experience of a fast-food restaurant
• real-estate agents

Because participant observation is group focused, it wouldn’t be the right research method to use for activities that people primarily do alone or that they do infrequently—for example, consumers making purchases on an ecommerce site. Since people shop online alone and shopping takes up only a small percentage of their time, it would make more sense to do a series of contextual inquiries in this case. However, participant observationwould make sense in studying a corporate procurement group making purchases for their company on B2B commerce sites.

How to Conduct Participant Observation

“To help you plan your study, do some initial research to learn about the domain, the users, and their activities.”

By this point, you may agree with me that participant observation sounds like a good way to learn about a group of people and their tasks, but you may be wondering how you could realistically apply this method within the tight timelines and budgets of typical UX design projects. So let’s look at how to do participant observation within the context of UX design research.

Do Some Initial Research

First, to help you plan your study, do some initial research to learn about the domain, the users, and their activities. Look at any previous research that others have done on the topic. This will help you to determine where to focus your research. Later on, your being well informed will help you to make sense of what you observe.

Plan Your Study

As with any study, you should first determine what your research goals are and the questions that you want to answer. However, doing participant observation requires that you address a few additional considerations.

Plan What to Observe

“You typically won’t have much time to conduct your design research, so limit your focus. Determine the groups, the people, and the activities that you want to observe.

Unlike an anthropologist studying a tribe in New Guinea, you typically won’t have much time to conduct your design research, so limit your focus. Determine the groups, the people, and the activities that you want to observe. Since you can’t observe everything, choose a representative set of activities to observe and determine when would be the best times to be present to witness those activities.

Determine How Much Time to Spend

Consider how much time you can spend on participant observation within the practical constraints of your project schedule. The time that you would need depends on how many different groups you must observe, the number of people in each group, the number and types of activities you need to watch, when those activities happen, and the complexity of the domain.

Decide on the Number of Observers

You can conduct participant observation either alone or with two or more other observers. If each observer participates in a different group, your data will have greater reliability. Observing only one group doesn’t reveal whether characteristics, behaviors, actions, and situations are unique to that group or common across groups. One observer is also more susceptible to bias and the subjective interpretation of data. Combining data from multiple observers helps you to overcome such difficulties. Plus, it gives you other people with whom you can discuss the findings.

Determine Whether Your Participation Will Be Overt or Covert

“For design research, overt participant observation is more appropriate.

You can conduct participant observations either overtly, informing the group members about your study and getting their consent to participate, or covertly, joining the group without letting them know that you’re a researcher conducting a study. Each approach has its own advantages and disadvantages, but for design research, overt participant observation is more appropriate.

On the other hand, the primary advantage of being covert is that you can see the most natural behavior in participants. Since you’re pretending to be a regular group member, your presence won’t make the other group members uncomfortable. And you’ll avoid the Hawthorne effect—the tendency of people to act differently when they know that they’re being observed as part of a study.

However, covert participant observation has more disadvantages than advantages. Being covert requires deception and deprives the participants of the opportunity to provide their informed consent. Maintaining your cover is a burden on you as a researcher, and it makes it almost impossible for you to take notes. Also, in some situations, it’s impossible for a researcher to pretend to be a group member because he or she is so obviously different from the group—either in physical characteristics such as age, gender, or ethnicity or in knowledge or experience.

For design research, it’s much better to conduct overt participatory observation. Being honest makes it easier for you to join and become an accepted member of the group, openly take notes, and ask questions. While you may not fit the profile of the typical group member, that won’t matter if they know you’ve joined the group because you’re doing a study. The problem of participants’ being uncomfortable or acting differently because they know they’re part of a study fades over time, as the group becomes more comfortable with you. In fact, people often feel morecomfortable with a participant researcher than with a researcher who just sits back, observes, and takes notes.

Join the Group

“Once you join the group, find key informants within the group—people who can provide important information about the group, its members, and the cultural context.”

To join a group, you usually need the help of a gatekeeper or person in charge of the group, who can introduce you to the group and help you to gain acceptance. Often your client can either play this role or introduce you to a gatekeeper. Once you join the group, find key informants within the group—people who can provide important information about the group, its members, and the cultural context. These people can introduce you to the group and give you legitimacy in other members’ eyes.

Build Rapport

It’s very important for you to build a good rapport with group members, so they’ll feel comfortable with your presence and trust you enough to share sensitive information with you. Being open and honest about your study and how you’ll protect participants’ privacy and maintain confidentiality are good first steps toward gaining trust. Building rapport also involves listening, being respectful, showing empathy, and behaving according to group mores.

Observe as You Participate

“It can be challenging to be an active participant, while also trying to observe the action.”

Participant observation is different from any other type of research in that it involves participating in addition to observing. It can be challenging to be an active participant, while also trying to observe the action.

Be Discreet

Even if you’ve been completely open with group members that you’re doing a study, you should still be discreet. You want them eventually to forget the fact that they’re being observed, and you don’t want to influence the group. So try to blend in by dressing and acting like the other members. Participating doesn’t mean that you should be the loudest, most outgoing member of the group.

Take Only Brief Notes

“Jot down brief notes whenever you can, then expand on them after the activity is over.”

When you’re participating, you can’t take detailed notes. Instead, jot down brief notes whenever you can, then expand on them after the activity is over. What you should note depends on your research questions, but in general, some things to capture are

• the people
• social behavior
• frequency of actions
• duration of actions
• body language
• interactions between people
• tools and artifacts that participants use
• environmental factors

You can also record audio or video, but you may not have much time for reviewing your recordings. Use them only as a backup rather than relying on them exclusively. Audio recording is usually a better option because it’s more unobtrusive and less likely than video to make people uncomfortable. Be sure to let participants know that you’ll be recording their activities, and always protect their privacy.

Expand Your Notes as Soon as Possible

Try to get away from the group at intervals to type up your notes, before you forget what you’ve seen. Expand your notes to include as many details as possible. It’s easier to remember details immediately after shorter sessions, so try to schedule breaks at several points during the day so you can type up your notes. Even if you’re doing overt research, it’s best to type up your detailed notes away from the group, to avoid reminding them that they’re part of a study.

Analyze Iteratively

“Analyze your findings at various points throughout your research as an iterative process. As themes and questions emerge, seek more information about them during subsequent research sessions.”

If you wait until the end of your research to analyze the results, you might become overwhelmed by all of the information you’d have to wade through. Instead, analyze your findings at various points throughout your research as an iterative process. As themes and questions emerge, seek more information about them during subsequent research sessions. Consider whether you should make any changes to your research. Always examine your conclusions to determine whether you’re developing any biases or your presence is affecting what participants are doing. 

Remember, You’re Participating, but You’re Not aParticipant

Use your own experience as a participant as a way to better understand what group members do, but don’t treat your own experiences in the same way that you would treat data from actual participants. Keep reminding yourself that, although you’re participating in the group, you’re not aresearch participant. Remember, you are not the user.

End the Study

When you think you have enough information to answer your research questions, it’s definitely time to end the study. In reality, however, project timeframes and budgets may determine how long your research can take.

When you leave the group, be sure to thank the participants and get their contact information, in case you want to get in touch with them later to ask them additional questions. During your analysis of the findings, you may need answers to more questions. Or you may want to conduct additional research activities with group members in the future.

Combine Participant Observation with Other Methods

“Participant observation can be even more effective when other methods complement this approach.”

Participant observation can be even more effective when other methods complement this approach. Before doing participant observation, interviews with the group’s gatekeepers and key informants are a good way to get up to speed on the domain, the group, the members, and their tasks and activities that you might want to observe. This information will help in planning your research.

During and after a participant observation study, you can use interviews to get answers to your questions and additional insights into the things that you’ve observed. You can use contextual inquiries to gain a more in-depth understanding of a particular process. If some things were too difficult to observe while participating in activities, you can go back to the group as a non-participating observer.

Conclusion

It may seem odd to participate in your own UX design research because it seems to violate the common UX maxim “you are not the user.” But participant observation is a well-established method in other fields of research. What other approach provides a more in-depth and empathetic understanding of a group of people than joining them and participating in their daily activities? When we step outside our typical role of dispassionate observer and try walking in the shoes of our users, what does that tell them about our commitment to understanding them? What might we learn about them and ourselves? It can’t hurt to try and find out.

References

DeWalt, Kathleen Musante, and Billie R. DeWalt. Participant Observation: A Guide for Fieldworkers. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011.

Family Health International. “Qualitative Research Methods: A Data Collector’s Field Guide. Module 2: Participant Observation.” Office of Assessment, Duke Trinity College of Arts & Sciences, undated. Retrieved November 27, 2013.

Kawulich, Barbara B. “Participant Observation as a Data Collection Method.” Forum: Qualitative Social Research, May 2005. Retrieved November 27, 2013.

Saint-Germain, Michelle A. “Data Collection Strategies II: Qualitative Research.” PPA 696 Research Methods. California State University, Long Beach, July 8, 2002. Retrieved November 27, 2013.

Sommer, Barbara A. “Participant Observation.” UC Davis, University of California, 2006. Retrieved November 27, 2013.

- See more at: http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2014/01/participatory-observation.php#sthash.ozyUrG5G.dpuf

The Line Of Least Resistance

via Smashing Magazine Feed http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2013/12/11/the-line-of-least-resistance/

• By Sorin Pintilie
• December 11th, 2013
 

More often than not, the most successful strategies are rooted in our very own nature. And common to most Grandmasters is that they almost never take the easy way out. A different, better alternative is always available, and they go looking for it. That creativity, that compulsion, that drive to look beyond what comes instinctively is what fuels successful strategies and explains why so few Grandmasters are out there.In chess, the psychological dimension that springs from a dialogue between two brains, two ideas, two strategic conceptions that depend on the personality of each chess player has long been somewhat of a romantic mystery. How do Grandmasters think? What strategies do they use?

For most of us, however, things are simpler. We tend to favor the shortest path, the easy way out, the shortcut. We cut through the middle of the park if we have to.

We’re naturally lazy. When we think, we search for the nearest pattern, and when we find the pattern, we don’t need to think anymore — we just follow the pattern. Our brains have evolved to be — borrowing Edward de Bono’s expression — “brilliantly uncreative.” This preference for shortcuts is what Grandmasters naturally exploit.

Playing on well-known weaknesses, automatisms or unconscious actions has long been a common strategy in chess. (Image credits: Mukumbura)

When it comes to using and interacting with technology, that underlying behavior seems to hold. Users unconsciously look for the line of least resistance — la loi du moindre effort, as psycholinguist François Richaudeau called it. Richaudeau’s work revolved around words, but considering how vital communication, language and words are to the design of interactions, the core principles still apply: The shortest words will be those emitted, understood and read with the minimum of effort, and also those most frequently employed due to their more profound presence — orincrustation — in our memory.

We remember shorter words better. That’s because, according to Kenneth S. Goodman, we process graphic, syntactic and semantic information simultaneously. In doing so, users carry out cycles of sampling, predicting, testing and confirming as strategies to bring in “the most reliable prediction with the minimum use of the information available.”

The process isn’t specific to words and reading, though. It underlies our behavior and interaction with the world around us.

Framing it in this way seems to suggest the generalized idea that behavioral patterns are linked to common causes — a concept expanded by behaviorism to the extent that it proposes a predictable and reliable link between a stimulus and the response it produces. That generalization is largely refuted by the cognitive revolution on the grounds that prior knowledge and mental processes intervene between a stimulus and response to reduce the predictability of human behavior — or the response — given a stimulus. Essentially, we can’t predict behavior.

While that may hold true at a micro level, there are still plenty of common paths of action in the way we work — stimulus, sensory organs,interneuron, brain, processing, motor neuron, response. It’s still safe to assume that if we design an environment in which even the subtlest of details is sympathetic to how we, as humans, work and think, and with the singular purpose of easing the experience, then users will always favor that line of least resistance.

Is the environment we design sympathetic to the way we work? (Image credits:opensourceway)

Designing an experience from a perspective that is more closely related to how we naturally strategize, designing guidance through pattern prediction, as opposed to limit enforcement, might prove to be a more viable approach.

Let’s put that in perspective. Take decision fatigue.

We all make decisions every day. Some of them big, some of them small, some conscious and some so insignificant that they slip by us without our even realizing. And in a world in which we are constantly bombarded with information and media options, such as blogs, social networks, magazines and TV, the effects of so many decisions that we have to take day by day become increasingly obvious.

Our decisions, even those that are mere preferences between option A and B, gradually take their toll on our cognitive load. The mental processes of decision-making are strenuous; we have only a finite store of mental energy available to exert self-control.

Basically, we get tired if we make too many decisions. As a result,according to Barry Schwartz, one of three things is likely to happen: we end up making poor decisions, we become more dissatisfied with our choices, or we get paralyzed and don’t choose at all.

Interaction processes — regardless of the medium — are a prime example of decision fatigue in action. At a micro level, hundreds of small, subtle and, most of the time, unconscious decisions that we take every time we use an application, browse a website or even follow an ad can affect the way we experience the artefact that we’re interacting with.

At a macro level, thanks to what we know about decision fatigue, we can predict that users can be overwhelmed to the point of making a default choice or no choice at all, depending on the option they face. One example of this is Dan Ariely’s opt-in versus opt-out example for forms of the US Department of Motor Vehicles. It shows that we can basically predict how people will react in a very specific situation by controlling the design of the application form, paying close attention to the defaults.

This is a very specific prediction of behavior. We’re not normally used to thinking of behavior as being that predictable. But in a lot of situations, it is. Ariely calls it being predictably irrational.

Contextual cues — through signs or linguistic cues, because they have the potential to refer to a specific value system — can sometimes direct cognition in particular ways, either encouraging or discouraging certain patterns of behavior. Thus, it’s vital that user experience practitioners maintain complete control over and responsibly use all elements in an interface that could be used as contextual cues and predictors.

And one of the biggest cues at the disposal of designers is language.

We, as a species, have refined language through countless iterations over the span of millennia to such an extent that words are tied to complex experiences, rather than to singular instances, by way of symbolic representation.

The Power Of Words

In 1967, Paul Watzlawick described what later became a cornerstone of communication theory: meta communication. He postulated that every communication includes, apart from the plain meaning of words, more information: information on how the talker wants to be understood and how they see themselves in relation to the receiver of the information.

Language, as a clear manifestation of the cognitive capacity of the human mind, is only a medium to carry out acts of communication. That’s one of the reasons why H.F. Bradley once said that experience is basically incommunicable.

Still, there is always something to communicate — moods, annoyances, happiness, feelings, ideas. There is always something that we need to understand — a noise, a color, a sign, a danger, an emotion. There is always some medium that is familiar to us — a grammar, an artistic language, a chess board, an interface.

While context provides a window into how people behave, words have the power to steer people towards a particular pattern of behavior throughframe manipulation.

Frame manipulation invariably affects users — admittedly, to different degrees. One prime example of how the context of options and the wording of a question affects behavior is Tversky and Kahneman’s famous experiment in 1981, which demonstrated systematic reversals of preference when the same problem was presented in different ways.

The experiment required participants to make a hypothetical decision, and the researchers tried to determine whether they could steer the participants towards an answer simply by wording the questions carefully.

The experiment proposed a hypothetical outbreak of disease with 60,000 predicted deaths, and participants had to choose between two programs:

• Program A
  20,000 people would be saved.
• Program B
  There is a 33% chance that all 60,000 would be saved, and a 66% chance that none of them would be saved.

With these options, program A was a favorite among participants. But what happened when the same question was asked again, but this time, instead of counting the number of lives saved, counting the number of deaths? Here’s how the second option would have sounded:

• Program A
  40,000 people would die.
• Program B
  There is a 33% chance that none of them would die, and a 66% chance that all of them would die.

This time around, the clear favorite was program B.

The interesting part is that the math is exactly the same for both: 40,000 out of 60,000 would die anyway. But with the first option, participants were given the choice of a gain: they were given the choice to save 20,000 people. So, the gamble was perceived as negative against the word “save.”

In the second option, participants were given the choice of a loss: 40,000 people would die, or they could gamble that none of them would die with a 30% chance.

Users were influenced simply by the wording. This later became known as the framing effect. The effect helps to explain why people are much more likely to buy meat when it’s labeled as 85% lean, instead of 15% fat. And it’s why twice as many patients opt for surgery when told they have an 80% chance of surviving, instead of a 20% chance of dying.

As the experiment demonstrates, words have the power to selectively influence a user’s perception of meaning. And, for most applications, words can also be used to elicit interactions.

SUMMING UP

Context is the barrier that makes or breaks a user’s experience. Those unconscious moments, every bit of information we discard on our way up an emotional peak, all of those fine details — they all could potentially lead to a sensible, sympathetic experience. A enjoyable experience is shaped only by context.

Some people use context and design great experiences, some don’t. Oliver Reichenstein calls it a continuum. That’s perfectly natural. We need to constantly make an effort to glance at the future once in a while — to permit ourselves educated dreams.

We need to permit ourselves to keep the vision going — from the ones whom we got it from, to the ones coming to get it. We all have the tools to do it. We just need to be responsible with them.

(al, ea, il)

Design that Gives Meaning to Users at Work

by

AnneMarie Lock

Comments (1)

Print

Share on deliciousShare on diggShare on email

24

Not too long ago, a user participating in one of our field studies described spending his work days keeping up with shifting information in an effort to avoid “being run over by the bus.”

At their most extreme, his tactics landed him at the office printer playing the part of inter-office spy, “borrowing” other employee’s documents to learn critical information.

Although he had plenty of software applications and processes at his disposal, his work was suffering and he was taking desperate measures.

If most of our users’ time at work is spent using applications designed to help them work more efficiently, why do they still report feeling overwhelmed, frustrated, and under-valued?

People want to feel like their actions contribute to something larger than themselves. Having meaningful work gives people a sense of purpose, engagement, and energy. As designers, we can help create a greater sense of meaning in the work lives of our users by understanding the role psychology plays in workplace happiness, and designing apps and software that are meaningful to users.

Searching for Meaning

The search for meaning and purpose is a universal part of the human experience. Martin Seligman, who established the field of positive psychology, lists meaning as one of the five key elements of a good life. The sense of well being derived from belonging to something larger and more permanent than oneself gives meaning to life.

Create spaces for colleagues to express thanks, gratitude, or just joke around.tweet this

Fields like organizational and positive psychology explore which environments are more conductive to this experience than others. “With a focus on psychology, UX designers can build services that directly help people improve their lives,” Loren Baxter notes in "Why Persuasive Design Should Be Your Next Skill Set."By exploring some psychological principles that explain what creates meaning in work, we can become better designers and create better products.

The Business Case for Emotional Design

As a part of a field study on collaborative work, my team talked to a lot of people about their work lives: the executive assistant defying his boss to better serve customers, the project managers swimming in a sea of emails and missed calls, and the freelancers trying hard to make a personal connection with long-distance clients. By asking them about the tools they used to get their work done, we discovered that the software they had available to them to do their jobs was often largely ignored because it didn’t address their unmet needs. By tapping into these unmet needs in work, we are uncovering opportunities to imbue meaning by developing applications that are more sticky—that users delight in and stay with over time.

A Framework for Understanding Behavior

To design products or services that contribute a sense of meaning to work, we need to understand the psychology underlying human experience. Leveraging the right emotional triggers is important to changing or shaping behavior; that is, to activating purpose, engagement and energy. There is a vast amount of psychology research available that is of interest to designers, but I’ve outlined several concepts from psychology research to get you started in designing for meaning or exploring the research further.

• Positivity: People who are more positive are more creative. They are better problem-solvers and work harder, and they influence their colleagues to do the same.
• Self-efficacy: The concepts of self-efficacy and “locus of control” predict the extent to which a person views himself or herself as good at things, and whether they feel like their actions have an effect on the world. Positive self-evaluations in these areas have been shown to impact how persistent people are at solving difficult problems, and how successful they are when faced with challenging circumstances.
• Losada line: The ratio of positive to negative interactions must exceed 2.9 for high-performing creative teams. For every one negative interaction, there must be at least three (and optimally six) positive interactions for teams to produce their very best work.
• Priming: An effect of memory where exposure to a certain stimulus impacts response to a later stimulus. In other words, people in positive surroundings notice more positive events and opportunities later.
• Intrinsic motivation. Individuals experience intrinsic motivation when they do work for the pleasure or interest in the task itself (like games), rather than in anticipation of an external reward (like money). Intrinsic motivation should be emphasized at work because it is more persistent than external motivators.
• Nourishment: Described by Teresa Amible in The Progress Principle, the nourishment factor is the extent to which colleagues offer respect, encouragement, emotional support, and affirmation. People that positively contribute to these categories infuse the work of their teams with greater meaning.

Not sure where to start? Here are a few design principles that can be used to guide explorations in this area:

Prime for Positivity and Progress

A focus on the positive aspects of work increases the likelihood of a successful outcome. Activate a priming response by thinking carefully about an application’s hierarchy and structure. Emphasize the positive aspects of work: progress, successes, affiliation, and learning.

For example, Basecamp includes a daily progress tracker that shows the work done that day by the entire team, tapping into a sense of self-efficacy and highlighting the collective efforts of everybody involved.

Enable Learning and Growth

As users interact with our applications, they leave behind a trail of activities. Use this data to support their overall progress as a worker. Track and show improvements in work, like metrics on how often they successfully meet deadlines. This activates a feeling of improvement over time, triggering self-efficacy and resulting in positive beliefs about the future. RescueTime is an application that shows its users their most and least productive days, based on how they’ve spent their time.

Ad by College of Creative Studies

Organize Around Goals

Encourage users to structure tasks under goals to highlight the purpose of their work. Tap into the user’s self-efficacy by showing how their work leads to steady, daily progress toward overall goals. Increase the visibility of the larger goals of the individual and their team. While there are many applications that help users track their tasks, few focus on the goals behind those tasks. More than a simple task manager, the EverestiOS app is a to-do list of personal goals that helps break them down into manageable steps and deadlines.

Reduce Decisions About Work

Help users automate some decisions about what to work on next by using goals as heuristics for dealing with work. Create spaces of autonomy and focus within larger projects by removing distractions. Users will have more accomplishments in their day and their feelings of self-efficacy will be activated. By removing all surrounding UI, the focus mode in IA Writer is a great example of being responsive to context and helping the user focus.

The Team is in it Together

Being part of a team creates a sense of bigger purpose. Craft an experience that places an emphasis on the individual’s work within a larger team, and use priming to highlight positive interactions in the team. Create spaces for colleagues to express thanks, gratitude, or just joke around. Further tap into feelings of affiliation by helping them build their network of colleagues. Do encourages teamwork by suggesting users add team members to their tasks to help get them done faster.

What’s Next?

Depending on your project, you may find these principles useful or come up with your own. Exploring the psychology behind work experience allows us to create experiences that are useful, useable, delightful, and meaningful. After all, happy people work better.

Image of happy coworkers courtesy Shutterstock

via UX Magazine http://uxmag.com/articles/design-that-gives-meaning-to-users-at-work