bentrem

Ben Tremblay · @bentrem

8th Feb 2011 from Twitlonger

A couple of things I encountered in the early 70s *blew my mind?* in-formed my appreciation of this field: 1) research into dynamics of jury deliberation found that discussion quite often hardened polarization, and 2) Jacques Maritain wrote <i>en passant</i> about how UN delegates, after having passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, came to realize that actually their agreement was empty: their interpretation of specifics diverged dramatically. I'm not suggesting that either of these shed light on the problem. But they told me that communications and human experience were far deeper than "product" and "end result" might lead us to suspect.

In the end (read: 30yrs later) I clarified my understanding by a study of Jurgen Haberma's "Discourse Ethics". A "communicative gesture" can be intended to deceive, or to impress, or to transfer information ... and all of that is couched in our exquisite sensitivity to subtleties. (Victims of confidence tricksters are often remarkably blind to danger signals.)

What I'm hinting at: what's "the user experience"? The social dimension is foundational; group membership is a powerful influence. And the personal? Multi-faceted. ("Oh! I understand how to use that widget, and wow, just look at the popcorn!") How did Coco Chanel put it? She didn't sell perfume; she sold <b><i>hope</i></b>?

Examining the individual elements, I suggest, is the slow path to success. (Does anyone talk about "cognitive ergonomics" these days?) Applying something like transactional analysis, I think, is the fast road.

For example: details of design aside, users who've established a "trust" relationship with a site are far more likely to click through multiple links to find what they way. I.e. even if the navigation design is klunky, if the customer anticipates success they'll put up with it.

Dignify the participant and they'll hang around! Give them something in the form of results and they'll come back!

Reply · Report Post