Skip to main content

Waterfall neither works for User Interface design

For a recent project we hired a design agency to help us create and design an attractive user interface for our users. So after some meetings with our end users, a few weeks of designer magic, the big moment was there, they going to present us ‘THE DESIGN’.

So I entered the meeting full of anticipation, eager to learn about the cool things the designers have created. So after a few PowerPoint slides, we got to see nicely designed and polished screens of our user interface, followed by the obvious question; “And guys, what do you think?”. There wasn’t much we could say, it certainly looked nice and the whole design was finished. But it doesn’t seem there was much room left for discussion or change.

After leaving the meeting, I didn’t feel satisfied. Although the result looked good, something was missing…

Dilbert_UX

Last week at NDC I had to think again about this meeting when I was following the Creating User Experiences: Unlocking the Invisible Cage session by Billy Hollis. In this session he explains that the design agency we hired took a completely wrong approach. By doing all the user meetings first and then creating a finished design(doesn’t this sound like waterfall to you?), users feel it hard to discuss about the core concepts of the application. Instead they discuss about some colors and maybe the position of a button here and there. But they’ll never discuss the concept itself: ‘Is this the correct design for this application?’.

Instead applying Agile techniques to the design process will lead to a far better design and user experience. By first creating multiple very simple, sketchy screen mockups, trying out completely different approaches, you’re giving the users room for discussion. They can talk about what designs they like, what designs they don’t like, why they like/dislike it, and so on. This is far more useful feedback than saying ‘this button should be green instead of red’.  The designer can then take all this input and create a new set of designs applying the concepts the users liked in the first session.

Of course this will probably take some extra time, but we end with the application the user need instead of the application the designer ‘thinks’ the user need.

Popular posts from this blog

Azure DevOps/ GitHub emoji

I’m really bad at remembering emoji’s. So here is cheat sheet with all emoji’s that can be used in tools that support the github emoji markdown markup: All credits go to rcaviers who created this list.

Podman– Command execution failed with exit code 125

After updating WSL on one of the developer machines, Podman failed to work. When we took a look through Podman Desktop, we noticed that Podman had stopped running and returned the following error message: Error: Command execution failed with exit code 125 Here are the steps we tried to fix the issue: We started by running podman info to get some extra details on what could be wrong: >podman info OS: windows/amd64 provider: wsl version: 5.3.1 Cannot connect to Podman. Please verify your connection to the Linux system using `podman system connection list`, or try `podman machine init` and `podman machine start` to manage a new Linux VM Error: unable to connect to Podman socket: failed to connect: dial tcp 127.0.0.1:2655: connectex: No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it. That makes sense as the podman VM was not running. Let’s check the VM: >podman machine list NAME         ...

Cleaner switch expressions with pattern matching in C#

Ever find yourself mapping multiple string values to the same result? Being a C# developer for a long time, I sometimes forget that the C# has evolved so I still dare to chain case labels or reach for a dictionary. Of course with pattern matching this is no longer necessary. With pattern matching, you can express things inline, declaratively, and with zero repetition. A small example I was working on a small script that should invoke different actions depending on the environment. As our developers were using different variations for the same environment e.g.  "tst" alongside "test" , "prd" alongside "prod" .  We asked to streamline this a long time ago, but as these things happen, we still see variations in the wild. This brought me to the following code that is a perfect example for pattern matching: The or keyword here is a logical pattern combinator , not a boolean operator. It matches if either of the specified pattern...