4 ms·

This is partially why UX research typically starts with rough wireframes rather than full application design, even in front of clients. The idea is that the lac

This is partially why UX research typically starts with rough wireframes rather than full application design, even in front of clients. The idea is that the lack of fidelity forces the client/user to focus on the functionality of the app rather than the bells and whistles of the design (especially of the visual kind). The impression I think is that the more polished a product or MVP looks, the more "finished" it is and therefore the more open it'll be to criticism (there's literally more of the product to criticise). This could be a good thing, since it gives you much more insight into what needs to be improved for the final product

endymi0n 4y ago
...to the point that (great) UX and wireframing tools like Balsamiq look crappy _on purpose_: https://balsamiq.com/wireframes/ https://balsamiq.com/wireframes/ Which all kinda makes sense, with the intuitive reasoning being: If you had time and money to sink into a pixel-perfect design, you're already one step beyond product-market fit, so creating a too good impression might not work in your favor.
seanwilson 4y ago
> This is partially why UX research typically starts with rough wireframes rather than full application design, even in front of clients. The idea is that the lack of fidelity forces the client/user to focus on the functionality of the app rather than the bells and whistles of the design (especially of the visual kind). I've found the tricky stage to be when you're getting closer to high-fidelity but you're not quite there yet and need client feedback to progress. Caveating everything the client should "ignore for now" can be exhausting and sometimes doesn't work (e.g. they'll nitpick the things you don't need feedback on yet), but polishing everything to high-fidelity levels before you can show it is incredibly time consuming. Are there any interesting tricks at this stage? I also use the phrase "uncanny valley" for this in-between stage of design where there's a risk the client is going to harshly judge parts of the design that aren't ready for feedback yet. Is there another phrase for this? I'll usually try to gauge at the start of a project how receptive the client is to brainstorming over rough work because it's much more efficient this way.
- mrcartmeneses 4y ago
  It really depends how strong the client brand is and how competent the client staff are that you’re working with. But the important thing is to take an evidence-based approach. A good idea is to keep it low fidelity for as long as possible until the UX is worked out and tested. Then high-fi it along the brand guidelines. Then test test test, again. The best way of getting a good result for your client is to take an evidence-based approach where the initial product is set up as an experimental baseline and further improvements are tested against that baseline, be that through automated A-B testing or focus groups of representative users. Focus on getting something small to market as soon as possible and adding/improving features in an evidence-based way. If the client has feedback you don’t like, test it anyway and charge them. They might be right. Focus group testing should take place before presenting to clients. Use paper prototypes with paper cutouts or using an app such as POP. Don’t guess! Test! As a rule when doing UX you want three possible designs (one of which should be a bit “out there”) and you should test each design with representative users. You learn a lot more from in person research than from A/B testing. A/B testing should always be used to verify changes or features. But you need to focus group at the design stage.
  - seanwilson 4y ago
    I agree with this but I was more thinking about the jump from low to high fidelity mockups for the MVP landing page scenario where there isn't strong branding yet and multiple phases of user testing for many design choices isn't in budget either. Even when the branding is strong, it's still useful to brainstorm with the client over work in progress for early feedback too. As an aside, what do you do when clients are resistant to doing user testing?
    - mrcartmeneses 4y ago
      I think it needs to be right up there in your pitch from the start. Position yourself as an “evidence based” supplier. But for current clients, loss aversion is always the best way to get people to change their behaviour. What I mean by that is you have to quantify the value of lost customers. Sometimes that means doing some user testing anyway (perhaps on some other area of their product) and showing how many people are getting frustrated and/or giving up. User testing doesn’t have to be expensive, just find 3 representative people (even if one is your SO or the boss’s PA) and sit with them while they use the product. If you can tell a client this is costing you x million a year, and fixing it only costs x thousand then you’re pretty much there. But like I said you’ve got to lead with evidence based approaches to get the clients you want.
MatthiasPortzel 4y ago
> the more polished a product or MVP looks, the more "finished" it is and therefore the more open it'll be to criticism (there's literally more of the product to criticise). I definitely agree with this, from what I’ve found both giving and reviving feedback.

endymi0n 4y ago

...to the point that (great) UX and wireframing tools like Balsamiq look crappy _on purpose_: https://balsamiq.com/wireframes/ https://balsamiq.com/wireframes/ Which all kinda makes sense, with the intuitive reasoning being: If you had time and money to sink into a pixel-perfect design, you're already one step beyond product-market fit, so creating a too good impression might not work in your favor.

seanwilson 4y ago

> This is partially why UX research typically starts with rough wireframes rather than full application design, even in front of clients. The idea is that the lack of fidelity forces the client/user to focus on the functionality of the app rather than the bells and whistles of the design (especially of the visual kind). I've found the tricky stage to be when you're getting closer to high-fidelity but you're not quite there yet and need client feedback to progress. Caveating everything the client should "ignore for now" can be exhausting and sometimes doesn't work (e.g. they'll nitpick the things you don't need feedback on yet), but polishing everything to high-fidelity levels before you can show it is incredibly time consuming. Are there any interesting tricks at this stage? I also use the phrase "uncanny valley" for this in-between stage of design where there's a risk the client is going to harshly judge parts of the design that aren't ready for feedback yet. Is there another phrase for this? I'll usually try to gauge at the start of a project how receptive the client is to brainstorming over rough work because it's much more efficient this way.

mrcartmeneses 4y ago
It really depends how strong the client brand is and how competent the client staff are that you’re working with. But the important thing is to take an evidence-based approach. A good idea is to keep it low fidelity for as long as possible until the UX is worked out and tested. Then high-fi it along the brand guidelines. Then test test test, again. The best way of getting a good result for your client is to take an evidence-based approach where the initial product is set up as an experimental baseline and further improvements are tested against that baseline, be that through automated A-B testing or focus groups of representative users. Focus on getting something small to market as soon as possible and adding/improving features in an evidence-based way. If the client has feedback you don’t like, test it anyway and charge them. They might be right. Focus group testing should take place before presenting to clients. Use paper prototypes with paper cutouts or using an app such as POP. Don’t guess! Test! As a rule when doing UX you want three possible designs (one of which should be a bit “out there”) and you should test each design with representative users. You learn a lot more from in person research than from A/B testing. A/B testing should always be used to verify changes or features. But you need to focus group at the design stage.
- seanwilson 4y ago
  I agree with this but I was more thinking about the jump from low to high fidelity mockups for the MVP landing page scenario where there isn't strong branding yet and multiple phases of user testing for many design choices isn't in budget either. Even when the branding is strong, it's still useful to brainstorm with the client over work in progress for early feedback too. As an aside, what do you do when clients are resistant to doing user testing?
  - mrcartmeneses 4y ago
    I think it needs to be right up there in your pitch from the start. Position yourself as an “evidence based” supplier. But for current clients, loss aversion is always the best way to get people to change their behaviour. What I mean by that is you have to quantify the value of lost customers. Sometimes that means doing some user testing anyway (perhaps on some other area of their product) and showing how many people are getting frustrated and/or giving up. User testing doesn’t have to be expensive, just find 3 representative people (even if one is your SO or the boss’s PA) and sit with them while they use the product. If you can tell a client this is costing you x million a year, and fixing it only costs x thousand then you’re pretty much there. But like I said you’ve got to lead with evidence based approaches to get the clients you want.

MatthiasPortzel 4y ago

> the more polished a product or MVP looks, the more "finished" it is and therefore the more open it'll be to criticism (there's literally more of the product to criticise). I definitely agree with this, from what I’ve found both giving and reviving feedback.