The estimated time to read this article is 52 minutes
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Paul Boag:
On the last show of this season we ask whether RFPs are broken, look at lean usability and investigate ways of working closer with clients. Oh yes, and Marcus picks a post from the BBC. Surprise, surprise.
Paul Boag:
Hello, Marcus, how are you this week?
Marcus Lillington:
Not bad, thank you, Paul. Very busy again which is why there?s another one from the BBC, okay?
Paul Boag:
You?re not asking how I am.
Marcus Lillington:
I?m not. How are you, Paul?
Paul Boag:
I?m dying Marcus, I?m dying.
Marcus Lillington:
No you?re not. You?re so not dying.
Paul Boag:
I am. You?ve no idea the stress I live under on a constant basis.
Marcus Lillington:
Yes, you live in that great, big metropolis.
Paul Boag:
Oh for ? bloody pop up adverts, that when you roll over them they start playing. The Internet?s broken, people! We need to start again and do it properly without ads.
Marcus Lillington:
An ad free internet.
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
That?s a nice thought. See that?s another reason why the BBC is so good.
Paul Boag:
Because they?re ad free. That is true.
Marcus Lillington:
Only in the UK though. It always does my head in when I log into the new site in America and loads of adverts come on. It?s wrong.
Paul Boag:
That?s amazing. That?s like witchcraft; the BBC with adverts?
Marcus Lillington:
It?s just wrong, all right.
Paul Boag:
Well yeah, well witchcraft?s wrong. Depending on your point of view, I guess. Unless you?re into sacrificing chickens. I don?t know whether that?s what ?
Marcus Lillington:
Is that witch..?
Paul Boag:
Oh I don?t know, I?m out of my depth now.
Marcus Lillington:
Yeah, exactly. You?re probably are offending all witches that are listening to this podcast.
Paul Boag:
Yeah, because you have white witches, don?t you, that apparently don?t sacrifice chickens. I don?t really know very much, I?m out of my depth at this point, Marcus.
Marcus Lillington:
Yes, therefore we probably should go somewhere else.
Paul Boag:
Let?s talk about something else. We could talk about web design-y stuff.
Marcus Lillington:
Not yet.
Paul Boag:
Do you know what?s really annoying? You say not yet, but we got a one star rating on iTunes because we just talk about our personal life and not about web design.
Marcus Lillington:
I saw you tweet that and had to go and have a look and it made me giggle because, yeah, I can?t sleep because of the one ? there?s like, what is it, there?s about 40 comments on there, I don?t know. And there?s like two I could find, one was the utter drivel one, which always made me laugh.
Paul Boag:
No, see that one I like.
Marcus Lillington:
Yes.
Paul Boag:
I like that one.
Marcus Lillington:
But the other one was ?yeah, you?re tired.?
Paul Boag:
We are tired. I am tired.
Marcus Lillington:
?Better retire chaps?
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
Or something like that anyway.
Paul Boag:
I wish I could retire to be frank.
Marcus Lillington:
Amongst all the other ones of how absolutely awesome it is.
Paul Boag:
You don?t appreciate what a sensitive individual I am.
Marcus Lillington:
Yeah, too bloody sensitive.
Paul Boag:
So yes. No, no, the reason I wanted to talk about the web ? I wasn?t necessarily wanting to get into the actual posts.
Marcus Lillington:
Okay.
Paul Boag:
But the web is full really cool stuff at the moment. There?s ? the guys are Clearleft have done a one day conference called Responsive Day Out, I think it was called.
Marcus Lillington:
Yes.
Paul Boag:
And they?ve just posted all the audio from that online and it is superb. So I?m trying to work through all of that and then I?ve got all these articles, really cool articles at the moment that I want to read. And then there?s ? I?ve just discovered Adaptive Path have got like loads of videos they?ve released from conferences they?ve produced. There?s just too much good content on the Internet.
Marcus Lillington:
I haven?t got time to look at any of it.
Paul Boag:
No, I know, that?s the trouble. The Internet is full of really clever people?
Marcus Lillington:
Full of good stuff.
Paul Boag:
?talking about really good things and I can see none of it.
Marcus Lillington:
Well I suppose you can. The thing is, and this is ? I don?t know this is a good thing or bad thing ? but I will work in the evening, I?ll even work on the weekend but I won?t read work ? fingers in the air ? work related podcasts. I won?t to listen to podcast or watch videos out of work.
Paul Boag:
Why not? Why will you work outside of work?
Marcus Lillington:
Because I have to.
Paul Boag:
Right.
Marcus Lillington:
Yeah? But I don?t have to watch an Adaptive Path video, which I know I?d like.
But yeah, I suppose that?s ? yeah I?m just not dedicated enough.
Paul Boag:
You just don?t give a shit, do you?
Marcus Lillington:
I?d rather read a story or watch something ? I?d like to sort of lose myself in fiction.
Paul Boag:
No I think it?s important, you?ve got to have a break and you?ve got to do other things, I totally agree with that, not criticizing you for your lack of commitment to work. I think you know, do the bare minimum you can get away with really.
Marcus Lillington:
Absolutely yeah. Hide in a cupboard, yeah.
Paul Boag:
If you?re a prospective client, sign up Headscape, we?ll do the bare minimum we can get away with. What was it? We really don?t ?
Marcus Lillington:
So not.
Paul Boag:
We don?t really present Headscape very well, do we? There was another one we were talking about couple of weeks ago where we ? I made some outrageous comment about us shafting clients or something. I can?t remember what it was now.
Marcus Lillington:
Well if you had a comment on that?
Paul Boag:
No, no, no, no. Nobody cares about that.
Marcus Lillington:
We?ve only got three listeners anyway.
Paul Boag:
They know we?re joking.
Marcus Lillington:
Yeah, the three listeners know we?re joking.
Paul Boag:
Exactly. And none of them have got any money to hire us anyway so what does it matter. So yes, we?ve been, yeah, busy. Which is good.
Marcus Lillington:
Yes, busy, but, we?re going off ? I?m going on holiday next week which is nice.
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
And as are you I believe.
Paul Boag:
Well yes, I?m having work in this holiday.
Marcus Lillington:
Yeah?
Paul Boag:
No. I?m taking two weeks to go, to drive down to the Black Forest in Germany to do a one day ?
Marcus Lillington:
Are you going to have any gateau?
Paul Boag:
I am going to have gateau ? to one day workshop with Smashing Magazine.
Marcus Lillington:
So that?s work.
Paul Boag:
So that counts as work.
Marcus Lillington:
Cool, cool yeah. Two weeks.
Paul Boag:
Two weeks for one day.
Marcus Lillington:
Yeah, yeah. Okay.
Paul Boag:
That?s the kind of work-slobbing around ratio I think we should all have.
Marcus Lillington:
That?s kind of cool.
Paul Boag:
It?s all the consultancy work we?re doing at the moment. It?s really fun, I like consultancy work.
Marcus Lillington:
It?s hard work though.
Paul Boag:
No, it?s only hard work because you have to do it too rather than just handing stuff across to the designers and developers and they have to do the work.
Marcus Lillington:
Yeah, but you have to kind of concentrate.
Paul Boag:
And the designers and developers don?t concentrate when they do their work.
Marcus Lillington:
Of course not they just ? it?s all just coloring things in and lining things up, isn?t it?
Paul Boag:
Have you seen Ed?s really cool way of showing responsive wire frames?
Marcus Lillington:
Yes but I can?t remember looking at it.
Paul Boag:
It?s awesome.
Marcus Lillington:
Yeah, I have seen it, yes, definitely, yes.
Paul Boag:
Really clever. So it?s a way of presenting responsive design to clients and it looks really, really cool. So I really like that. Talking of responsive days out and things like that, all this responsiveness is getting complicated, isn?t it?
Marcus Lillington:
I still love responsive design. Since, I?ve turned blind.
Paul Boag:
It just ? yeah.
Marcus Lillington:
It?s just brilliant.
Paul Boag:
It is brilliant.
Marcus Lillington:
And I hate now when I go to a site that isn?t responsive.
Paul Boag:
No, absolutely.
Marcus Lillington:
There?s an expectation there.
Paul Boag:
So last Wednesday I was at altitude the conference in Portsmouth.
Marcus Lillington:
Yeah, yeah.
Paul Boag:
And it was an interview based thing, so I interviewed a load of different guests and one of them was Jeremy Keith and he was talking about responsive design as he always does. And just the more I think about responsive design the more its just that is how the web should be.
Marcus Lillington:
Yes.
Paul Boag:
You know this kind of you build one interface, it adapts for whatever device you?re using it on. And so as more and more of these devices come along, the more and more I?m convinced it?s the way to go. Although, interestingly if you are Robin Christopherson from Abilitynet, who is blind, flipping apps are the way to go. Seriously, really fascinating talking to him about just iOS generally and how incredibly accessible the whole of iOS is. And so all of the apps that are built for iOS are just really, really accessible out of the box.
So you try and go to Amazon.com for him and he wants to commit suicide in about five minutes. Use the Amazon app and it?s absolutely amazing, it?s really good for him. To the point right, I mean I?ve got people laughing over this. Because I said ? well he said ?oh it?s assessable, everything?s accessible? and I said ?what about the camera, then? Could you take a photograph as a blind person?? Oh ha ha, everybody laughs. Yes, he can. Right? It?s incredible. It will go ? he holds up the camera and of course he can?t see what he?s taking but he can ? it will say to him, one face central. So he knows that he?s got the person?s face in the camera and he can take the picture.
Marcus Lillington:
That?s amazing.
Paul Boag:
Isn?t that incredible? And I said ?alright, I?ve got you now. Maps.? I bet you can?t use maps. He can use maps on the iOS device, right. So he can run his finger across the screen, across the map and it will tell him what road his finger?s on and as he moves along the road, if he moves his finger off of it, it starts beeping and if he moves his finger back on the road the beep goes away. So he could tell which directions roads run in and where they intersect with one another, he can identify where he is.
The other one he says, which is brilliant for him his Facetime, right. Again you think he?s blind, why would he care about facetime? Facetime is brilliant because if he?s somewhere and he gets stuck and he doesn?t know what he?s doing, he can just ring a friend, show them whatever it is he?s trying to do, and say what?s going on here. He?s also got apps?
Sorry, I?m really getting into it. It like opened up this whole world and of course Robin was amazing anyway, the first time I heard him speak was at Atmedia 2005, when it was both of our first exposure to a screen reader, wasn?t it, hearing someone with it.
Marcus Lillington:
Yeah. Well it was the entire audience?s and about 1,000 people just going [gasps]. I cannot believe what I?m hearing.
Paul Boag:
But that?s what I felt again hearing him talk last Wednesday. So yeah, so the other thing is he?s got apps that?ll do things like he can take a picture of an object and it will identify the object and tell him what it is, right. So he went out to the supermarket with his family and they were walking around the supermarket. And his kid said, ?oh what?s that?? Right, and of course he can?t see what it is so he just takes the photograph and it tells him that it?s a courgette, or whatever, you know or some vegetable that he never heard of.
And it goes further. So he can take pictures of barcodes for example, on objects, or just objects and it will recognize the brand name on the packet or whatever. And of course it doesn?t just tell him what the thing is, it just tells him its nutritional value, where he can buy it cheaper, all of the other kind of stuff.
And so this device has just transformed the blind community?s world. It?s just so very, very cool. And all of this is built ? baked into a device we use everyday and probably none of us ever realized it did all this cool stuff.
Marcus Lillington:
No. Just goes to show the depth of thinking that goes into Apple?s product.
Paul Boag:
Yep, absolutely.
Marcus Lillington:
Quite impressive really, isn?t it?
Paul Boag:
It is incredibly impressive. So although we?re getting very excited about responsive design, if you are blind person you?re getting very excited about native apps. So there?s a place for everything, isn?t there?
Anyway should we talk about our stories?
Marcus Lillington:
Yes.
Is the RFP broken?
Paul Boag:
Okay. So our first post is one from e-consultancy. Have you actually had the chance to look at any of these posts yet, Marcus?
Marcus Lillington:
Of course not.
Paul Boag:
No.
Marcus Lillington:
This is normal. I comment as we go along. Occasionally have some wise words, but?
Paul Boag:
It?s a little bit rushed this week, isn?t it?
Marcus Lillington:
Yeah.
Paul Boag:
But good post on e-consultancy: is the RFP broken? So this is the kind of thing that you?d be quite interested in, Marcus. I picked this one for you.
Marcus Lillington:
Depends on the RFP, really doesn?t it?
Paul Boag:
Yeah, well that?s kind of what they?re talking about. So it?s talking about you know how the normal way ?
Marcus Lillington:
RFP means request for proposal.
Paul Boag:
Yes. No, that?s a good point. The normal way that it works is somebody sends out an RFP or brief as we ? I?ve noticed that Americans don?t really use the word brief, they don?t really know what we?re talking about when you say brief, which is interesting.
Marcus Lillington:
Really?
Paul Boag:
Yeah. Or perhaps it was just the Americans I was speaking to about this. Everyone looked blankly at me.
Marcus Lillington:
Oh okay. I thought they did. Yes, maybe, I don?t know. But yeah, basically it?s a brief for a job, RFP. We often have more official ones called invitations to tender. I like the RFP usually over the ITT because the RFP is just saying we?ve got this idea, this is what it?s about, can you send us a proposal?
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
Because basically it?s a request for proposal, for how you?d approach the job, what it would cost, et cetera. And you don?t have to fill in 20,000?
Paul Boag:
Forms.
Marcus Lillington:
?forms for the procurement department, which you do if you?re responding to an invitation to tender.
Paul Boag:
Are most invitation to tenders more bureaucratic then?
Marcus Lillington:
Yeah. You get those from the European commission and from the local council. It?s council stuff.
Paul Boag:
Right. It?s as soon as you?ve got a procurement department, things get complicated from what I can gather.
Marcus Lillington:
Well it?s if an organization has signed up for a method of ? for certain processes that it states it will buy its stuff via a particular type of process.
Paul Boag:
Right. Ah okay.
Marcus Lillington:
And if you do that, if they do that, then usually it?s misery and gloom for anyone who?s responding.
Paul Boag:
Yeah.
Marcus Lillington:
Because it?s ? you get lovely things like how will you ? so we?re talking about the deliverables, and it?s I remember one when they?ve ? will your deliverables be shipped directly to our loading bay or via the front desk or something like that? You know we?re obviously talking about digital deliverables here but they were referring to sort of something on a pallet.
Paul Boag:
Yeah.
Marcus Lillington:
So you have to deal with a lot of that sort of thing. And you also get to deal ? have to ask questions about your policies, which if you were a 500 or 1,000 person company, then yeah, okay you probably would have certain policies in place.
Paul Boag:
Yeah.
Marcus Lillington:
But if you?re 10 person company you probably don?t. So you kind of have this feeling of kind of like inferiority immediately: [mumbling] ?oh well we don?t really do that?. So you think, well, is this a waste of time? Et cetera, et cetera. And normally because of fairness, you can?t speak to anyone.
Paul Boag:
That?s the big one, isn?t it?
Marcus Lillington:
Yeah.
Paul Boag:
Yeah, absolutely.
Marcus Lillington:
But anyway I?ve gone off into more ? that?s more ITT land rather than RFP. RFP usually means there?s someone I can phone up or go and visit and have a chat about their RFP.
Paul Boag:
Yep.
Marcus Lillington:
But I haven?t read any of the?
Paul Boag:
No, I mean the article basically splits down into two things. It splits down into what makes a good/bad RFP.
Marcus Lillington:
Okay, yeah.
Paul Boag:
And then a proposal for a kind of better way of doing things really. I mean in terms of bad RFPs, and I?ve got say, I read through this I couldn?t agree more with most of the stuff he?s written. A bad RFP would be overly prescriptive, you know: we want to work with this kind of technology, here?s our information architecture. We want these design elements, da-da-da-da-da-da-da.
Marcus Lillington:
Yeah, I mean ? do you know what? It?s actually about communication. Because I was going to say a bad RFP is a one-sider that says ?we kind of think we should be doing something, man.?
Paul Boag:
Right.
Marcus Lillington:
But actually if you then go in and talk to them about that, and ask them questions that you get sensible answers to, then, well, it?s all right. You know what I mean?
Paul Boag:
Yeah.
Marcus Lillington:
So, overly prescriptive if you can challenge them?
Paul Boag:
It can be underly prescriptive as well. That?s not a word, is it? But you know.
Marcus Lillington:
Underly. Well, no. But yeah if you can challenge something that?s overly prescriptive and they go ?oh yeah, hadn?t thought of that , that?s a good idea.? Then it?s okay.
Paul Boag:
Yeah. So they also talk about the kitchen sink approach, basically where you get RFPs that are wish lists, basically.
Marcus Lillington:
Yes, yes. Yeah and that?s really hardest place to get them, and then we?re going back to the ITT ? these are all problems with ITTs. The same things apply, but you can?t talk to them.
Paul Boag:
Yeah.
Marcus Lillington:
So yes ?we?d like these 60,000 things.? And you have to respond to each one of them, but split it up and tell us per task, per hour, per minute, what each one?s going to take you to do. And then you kind of ? and then you end up with this huge figure which isn?t anyway near their budget and you go ?well hang on a minute, I don?t know which is important, which isn?t? and all this kind of thing.
Paul Boag:
Yes. Well that?s why I really liked ? I mean we were out with the RSPB yesterday talking about a particular piece work that they want to do. And theirs was really good, wasn?t it? Because it was split down into must haves, could haves, maybe this would be nice, you know, if all the planets aligned.
Marcus Lillington:
Moscow.
Paul Boag:
Moscow?
Marcus Lillington:
Must, should, could, would like.
Paul Boag:
How is that Moscow? That?s a really bad ?
Marcus Lillington:
Because the ?o? is deleted.
Paul Boag:
Oh, okay. Yeah, so I mean that?s a good way of doing it. I like that.
Marcus Lillington:
Yes.
Paul Boag:
So what other things has he got on his list? Overly detailed descriptions of features and exactly how they should work.
Marcus Lillington:
It goes both ways that does.
Paul Boag:
Well the thing is, is that surely should ? us as designers should be providing guidance over those things. So being overly prescriptive is ? just because they suggest. I get frustrated by invitations to tender or RFPs or whatever you want to call them, that kind of define quite specifically how a feature should work, when I know damn well there?s a better of doing it.
Marcus Lillington:
Well yes. That?s fine. And if you can say ?we think this is better way of doing it? and they go ?oh, that?s good.? then it?s okay.
Paul Boag:
Yes, again that comes back to the talk. But it would be better if the you know ? perhaps we ought to skip onto the good things that he talks about. He talks about not fixating on rigid processes or features and being focused on achieving outcomes rather than the method of how to achieve those outcomes.
Marcus Lillington:
Exactly. How would this be viewed as a success, is a really good thing to say.
Paul Boag:
Yes. Another one he?s got is the ability for respondents to formulate and ask questions, which is the picking up the phone, talking to them. Asking well framed questions from the person that you?re commissioning as well and understanding the communication and business issues rather that just focusing on the delivery.
It goes back to the thing that we always talk about even when we run projects, this thing of the client should be focusing on the problem and we should be coming up with the solution. And a lot of RFPs are the solution written down or their proposal of what the solution should be, when it would be better if it was focusing on what the problem was instead.
Marcus Lillington:
Yeah. I?ve just got to have a moan.
Paul Boag:
Okay.
Marcus Lillington:
This is slightly ? this goes back to this idea of you?re not allowed to speak to anyone. So what they do is you?re allowed to send back questions via email, that will then be responded to and shared with everyone who?s been invited. I?ve got no problem with the sharing part of it, the problem is, is questions via email. If you go meet someone there?s a back and forth, there?s a discussion to find out what the best solution is. If you ask a question, chances are the answer will leave you a ?okay, but?? And then you?ve got to go again through the whole process again, and it?s got to be shared with everyone.
We just want to have a conversation. That?s it.
Paul Boag:
Yes, absolutely. That kind of not face-to-face necessarily but that person-to-person discussion.
Marcus Lillington:
Yeah it doesn?t have to be face-to-face. Face-to-face is better. That?s what I guess what I?m saying. Mr. or Mrs. Person who is sending out this ITT to us and to whoever else, you will get a better proposal?
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
?if you have a chat with us.
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
That?s the bottom line.
Paul Boag:
Yes, absolutely, yes.
Marcus Lillington:
Moan over.
Paul Boag:
So he talks about a better way of doing it in this article ? I assume it?s a he, I don?t know whether it is?yes, Mark. But actually I don?t know whether I necessarily agree with the approach that he is taking. He talks about that an RFP should consist of a well-planned scenario, so kind of use cases. And I can kind of see where he is coming from but sometimes even that is something that you kind of need to explore with the designer together.
Marcus Lillington:
Yes.
Paul Boag:
I?ve got to say that the best RFPs we?ve ever responded to is where the client just comes to us with a problem and we almost help them write the RFP.
Marcus Lillington:
Yes.
Paul Boag:
Those are the best ones where you?ve gone to a web design agency and often we write an RFP and then it will go out to tender. There will be other companies invited to respond to it as well.
Marcus Lillington:
It comes back to what I was saying about the underly prescriptive one is the one I like, as long as we can then ? if ? a phone call basically.
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
Somebody phones up and says our website is not working for us, can you come up and have a chat with us? We are speaking to other people as well. That?s the best RFP.
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
By miles.
Paul Boag:
Yes, absolutely. So all of this about creating scenarios, I am not ? to be honest, the title of the article ?Is The RFP Broken?? and I?d almost like to say ?Is The RFP Relevant??
Marcus Lillington:
Yes.
Paul Boag:
Or is it actually better just to have a chat with three different web design agencies, get their opinions on it and?
Marcus Lillington:
Because at the end of that meeting you will say ? in those meetings I would say, okay, well my next step is to write a proposal for you.
Paul Boag:
Yes, so you?ve gathered all the information you need through a conversation rather than a formal document.
Marcus Lillington:
Exactly.
Paul Boag:
Okay, so we have now rejected the RFP.
Marcus Lillington:
Absolutely.
Paul Boag:
Even though we spend most of our lives responding to them. So it makes it sound like so not only now is Headscape lazy and does the bare minimum as we established earlier, we also we don?t want to hear from you if you have got an RFP.
Marcus Lillington:
If you have an RFP, please do send it through.
Paul Boag:
Yes. We don?t mind responding to them but it?s nice to have a conversation as well.
Designing with stakeholders
Paul Boag:
I?ve become very self-conscious all of a sudden. It?s following that .NET article that they wrote. They did a kind of interview of me.
Marcus Lillington:
Yes.
Paul Boag:
And I?ve just done it again. We were just talking about Headscape and so we shared a load of really good points and then I undermined it with this kind of self-deprecating thing about how crap Headscape are. Check out this bit that came from the .NET article. ?A pronounced pattern in Boagworld ? sorry Boag?s, okay. Don?t even know who I am anymore?
Marcus Lillington:
Paul?s, there you go, Paul?s.
Paul Boag:
?patter became apparent. He enthuses on a topic, demonstrates his prowess and then knocks himself down with a swipe of self-deprecation.? I just did exactly the same with Headscape. I need to stop doing it.
Marcus Lillington:
You do, because we are really, really good.
Paul Boag:
See instantly ?
Marcus Lillington:
We?re really good, so good.
Paul Boag:
But see you are doing the same thing, you?re doing exactly the same thing. We are terrible at self-deprecation.
Marcus Lillington:
But no we are genuinely really, really good.
Paul Boag:
We are good with stuff.
Marcus Lillington:
There you go.
Paul Boag:
But we self-deprecate the whole time. Right.
Marcus Lillington:
What?s the next article, Paul?
Paul Boag:
Yes, we are talking about something else. UX Magazine this one comes from.
Marcus Lillington:
Okay.
Paul Boag:
And it?s about designing with stakeholders? I don?t know why there should be a question mark there. Seems like a statement to me. Accelerating the design process through co-creation.
Marcus Lillington:
Okay. And this is by Angela Craven.
Paul Boag:
For some reason it has a hippo on it. And I haven?t been able to work out why the hippo is there.
Marcus Lillington:
The hippo is the huge enormous organization that has the stakeholders in it and the little bird on its nose is the designer.
Paul Boag:
Oh I didn?t notice the little bird on its nose.
Marcus Lillington:
I am making that up by the way but I suspect that?s what it means.
Paul Boag:
But it sounds like the kind of thing, doesn?t it?
Marcus Lillington:
Yes.
Paul Boag:
So basically this article, I picked this article because it talks in very much the way we talk, right, and it screams Client Centric Web Design which is a book I wrote, link in the show notes for that. I don?t know why I keep saying link in the show notes because it creates so much work for me going through and finding all those. It?s a pain in the arse. Oh and I?m also doing a different thing because I?ve had a couple of requests that said can we group all the links together to make them easier to find in the show notes. So I?m going to do that.
Marcus Lillington:
Okay.
Paul Boag:
But I don?t know why I needed to say that, I didn?t need to say that at all. So anyway this is a really good article, check it out. Essentially what it?s doing is it?s encouraging co-creation, right, so instead of take your RFP, write your proposal, win the work, go away and produce magic, it works on the assumption that the client and the designer should work really closely together throughout the process to create great work at the end of it. That?s the premise.
Marcus Lillington:
We were talking about that in just the last section.
Paul Boag:
Yes, I guess we were in a way. It?s that communication and interaction, the whole ? but not just through the sales process which is what we were talking about before but throughout the whole process from beginning to end and this is very much how we work. In fact going back again to the RFPB example of we were up with them yesterday, that is the way that we will work with them. So we will show them sketches of ? or different sources of inspiration. We?ll show them sketches, we?ll do wire framing together as a group. We even talked, didn?t we, earlier today about maybe getting them to mood board with us. So we mood board collectively rather than at the designer doing it.
Marcus Lillington:
Yes, done that before, did that with another American client. It was a very interesting exercise actually.
Paul Boag:
It was brilliant, actually. I am really glad we did it because that was the first time we tried it and it worked really, really well. We have all these different exercises that we like to do with clients. The cereal box exercise where we get them to design a cereal box which sounds ridiculous.
Marcus Lillington:
That?s from Cennydd Bowles and James Box?s book.
Paul Boag:
Is it? Right, okay. Link in the show notes to that as well.
Marcus Lillington:
But the ? Leigh?s idea?
Paul Boag:
Leigh?s is a good one, yes.
Marcus Lillington:
?of the designer reception area.
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
That?s one more from a kind of visual point of view.
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
Yes, it?s mood.
Paul Boag:
Yes, it?s more aesthetics.
Marcus Lillington:
Yes, getting the mood because obviously you?re getting your ? what you?re trying to get people to do is think about what kind of impression they want to give a new visitor to their building. It?s the same thing applies.
Paul Boag:
So again?
Marcus Lillington:
But it?s an abstract so people are much more willing to kind of throw in ideas that they wouldn?t if you were just talking about a home-based design for instance.
Paul Boag:
Yes, Lee has just posted about that on the Boagworld?s website so link in the show notes to that as well. We need to stop that. So there is lots of different methods that you can use, we do use retention exercises. We?re basically trying to include the client as much in the process. And I think it?s really, really worthwhile to do because it ensures that the ? well one is you get a really good understanding of the challenges of the business and you get to a much deeper understanding of what?s going on behind the project. So that?s one aspect of it. Also you?re educating the client as you go through the process as well about what makes good web design but most importantly of all is that the stakeholders get the website. They understand their website, they feel a sense of ownership over the website and they are enthusiastic about it because it?s as much their website as it is yours.
And somewhere in the article, I can?t find it at this exact moment but somewhere in the article it says something along the lines of that ? and this relates to something you said ages ago actually, Marcus, which is it doesn?t matter where a good idea comes from, it?s still a good idea. And the reason what you said ages ago was that it?s not only designers that can come up with good design ideas. Do you remember us having that conversation?
Marcus Lillington:
Yes, which is why ? because you had said in the previous thing about we?ll provide the solution, you tell us what the problem is.
Paul Boag:
Yes, that was it.
Marcus Lillington:
Well I don?t actually necessarily agree with that.
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
I do.
Paul Boag:
It?s a starting point but it shouldn?t be prescriptive.
Marcus Lillington:
Exactly, yes, just because you are?I don?t know, a marketer not a designer, doesn?t mean to say you can?t have any good design ideas.
Paul Boag:
Absolutely. So that?s one of the things that they?ve come up with here is that we need to as designers be a lot less kind of high and mighty, protective. And that one of the other things that I think we fear quite a lot is exposing ? they describe it in this post as exposing the chaos.
Marcus Lillington:
Yes.
Paul Boag:
The design process isn?t a neat and tidy one. It?s not always kind of progressing through the stages. And I think we sometimes fear that if we expose the client to that, they will react badly because it seems quite so chaotic but actually I think we really need to do that, we need to open up our processes, let the client in, get them actively involved and it creates a better website at the end of the day. There is just ? I don?t think you can really argue with that. And it?s a really satisfying process to go through.
Marcus Lillington:
Yes.
Paul Boag:
And clients go away much happier in my experience as well. So check out that post. The author talks in a lot more detail about these kinds of things and about how to communicate often and early with the client and some of the kind of benefits of taking this kind of approach. So check it out, great article on UX Magazine.
Lean usability as a design model
Paul Boag:
So my next post is from Gerry McGovern, usability specialist, and I have said it before and I will say it again, I think we are some kind of in some way linked on a telepathic level, me and Gerry. It?s really funny, it?s like I agree with so much that Gerry writes and most of the time he is slightly ahead of me and he has been thinking about things and I then come around to his way of thinking and see his post on the subject, independently we?ll kind of come to the same conclusion. This time it?s the other way around. This time something that I?ve been banging on about for quite a while, he has suddenly picked up on this subject and is going for it.
This particular post is one that he has written following attending a conference in Denver about lean usability. And the one line that really leaped out at me in this post is that ? or one paragraph should I say, is this one. Continual improvement is not something most organizations are good at but is an approach that is absolutely essential for success on the Web. One speaker at the usability conference told me about how his government can find millions every three or four years to redesign the main government website but that in the intervening years it allocates practically zero resources for maintenance and continual improvement of the site.
And the whole article is basically saying we need to stop periodic redesigns. We need to end this boom bust cycle where we are investing big chunks of cash every three to four years to redesign our websites and instead we need to be investing on an ongoing basis. He says at another point, the vast majority of websites I?ve worked with would be a hundred times better off if they spend $50,000 every year to improve their website rather than spending $200,000 every three to four years.
And it?s just spot on. And he goes on and he identifies some of the problems that are occurring whereby it?s so much ? it seems to be so much easier for organizations to allocate a large chunk of money periodically than it is for them to hire another member of staff.
Marcus Lillington:
It?s about responsibility.
Paul Boag:
Go on.
Marcus Lillington:
If you view a website as a book?
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
?then it?s something that you can put a load of effort into, and hire lots of experts and get great design, I don?t know, illustration or whatever.
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
And then you publish it and it?s on the shelf and then you can forget about it.
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
That?s a really nice model because then you can go on and do the next thing you do in your job.
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
But what we?re saying is you should view it as a magazine.
Paul Boag:
Right, yes.
Marcus Lillington:
That is published every week or every day or whatever. So therefore you?ve got to come up with good different content all the time, you?ve got to be oh, we?re going to try this in the summer.
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
Because things change seasonally or we?re going to try this slight change in the design because we feel that it reflects the branding that somebody else in the organization is doing. Basically it?s the way you view it, you shouldn?t view it as something that is?
Paul Boag:
I like the book/magazine comparison.
Marcus Lillington:
Yes.
Paul Boag:
That works really well, doesn?t it?
Marcus Lillington:
That?s what it is. But I think if you are a marketing director, viewing it as a book is a lot easier than viewing it as a magazine.
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
Because a magazine never goes away.
Paul Boag:
No.
Marcus Lillington:
It?s always nagging at you.
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
What the hell am I going to do with it this week. But that?s what it should be, is what this is trying to say.
Paul Boag:
But the weird thing is, is that ? take from an organizational point of view. You don?t just do marketing every two, three years. You?ll have a marketing department that?s constantly dedicated to marketing.
Marcus Lillington:
Yeah but you?re going to say right, we?re going to do the book at the moment and we?re going to get the book done and then we?ll move on to whatever the other thing is, the campaign but actually it?s ? and that, I can understand why people do that.
Paul Boag:
Yes, it?s just so frustrating because it?s not a healthy way of working with a website because the way I always explain it is if you think of a rollercoaster kind of graph where it kind of peaks and then troughs, and peaks and troughs, that kind of thing, that ? and you kind of slice off the top third of that graph, that top third is the time when the website is effective. And then it gets to this point where it?s out of date, the content is out of date, the design is looking dated, the technology is now way behind and far too complex to use, et cetera, et cetera.
So for the vast majority, probably two-thirds of the life cycle of the website it?s totally ineffective. People are embarrassed by it. They don?t refer people to it because they are ashamed of it. So what?s the ? what a waste of money. And then what annoys me most of all is it kind of gets to the bottom of the trough, the point where senior management is saying we need to sort out our website and the whole lot is thrown out, all of that investment, whether good, bad or indifferent and a new website is put online.
Marcus Lillington:
And the previous website designers are smeared by the poor quality of what they delivered four years ago.
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
So you have to get somebody new in to teach them how your business works and go through that whole rigmarole again.
Paul Boag:
Yes, it?s ridiculous and there are so many easy ways to incrementally improve a website these days. There are some really great tools for AB testing, in fact I am in the process of writing a post that I am hoping a post on Splashy Magazine about tools for incremental change. There is AB testing tools, there is tools like Crazy Egg which can look at scrolling and hotspots and that kind of stuff on the page. There is tools for working out whether your calls to action are being effective. There is Verify app and tools like that which I?m not linking to all these in the show notes.
There is so many great tools out there that make this kind of thing easy. Even usability testing, even classic usability testing. You know there is tools like usertesting.com which allows you to do remote usability testing really lightweight and very, very easily and that?s again what Gerry McGovern touches on. He is suggesting tools in his article as well. And we need to get into this model. It?s the biggest single thing that frustrates me with our work. The agency model is you?re brought in, you design a website and you go away. I hate it. I hate that. I love the clients where we get to work with them on an ongoing basis.
Those are the ones where you can really have an impact. And if I look at the websites where we?ve got the most glowing testimonials, where we?ve got the best examples of hard stats that have improved, these are the clients that we work with on a continual basis, whether it be WFF and its 10,000% increase in conversions over five years or whatever it was or the RAFPF that we work with and their jump in donations. These are people we work with on a continual basis rather than one-off and that is what I want to do more of. It just drives me nuts. Well you ranted earlier so I figure it must be my turn by now.
So there you go. There?s not much else to say on Gerry McGovern?s post other than check it out and look at ? I think if you are a website owner Gerry McGovern is somebody you should be reading on a regular basis anyway but this article in particular I think you?ll find particularly challenging and particularly exciting as well because there are incredible opportunities associated with this. So with that said, let?s steam on to Marcus?s BBC news technology post of the week.
Writing on screen
Marcus Lillington:
Paul is so rude.
Paul Boag:
Is it? I mean isn?t the BBC the only?
Marcus Lillington:
You are so rude, aren?t you? You even had to say it on the intro today; rude, rude, rude.
Paul Boag:
Do you read any other website?
Marcus Lillington:
Yes, but not what I think would be even remotely useful to this podcast. And to be honest, not really. The really honest answer is no. It deals with everything that I am interested in really well.
Paul Boag:
That?s so sad.
Marcus Lillington:
Well I was having this conversation with a friend in the pub last night because he was basically saying so where do you get your news from? BBC. And he was like, well obviously but?
Paul Boag:
Where else.
Marcus Lillington:
Do you get it from anywhere else. I am like, no. And he said ? because he reads Russian news and it?s like wow and Aljazeera. And I know a lot of people that read Aljazeera.
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
Because he said to get a completely different view?
Paul Boag:
A non-Western?
Marcus Lillington:
?on the world, and I said okay. He said most of it you are not interested in but sometimes something will come up that will just kind of make your hair stand on end because it?s just such a different viewpoint. This has nothing to do with the article we?re going to look at.
Paul Boag:
But from a web design point of view in your job, right, where do you learn stuff from there then?
Marcus Lillington:
The honest answer to ?
Paul Boag:
Is you don?t.
Marcus Lillington:
No, I have been doing a podcast for the last eight years.
Paul Boag:
Right.
Marcus Lillington:
Where we discuss?
Paul Boag:
News.
Marcus Lillington:
?news.
Paul Boag:
Yes, I suppose you?re reading all the stuff that ?
Marcus Lillington:
Paul Boag: is the person I get my news from.
Paul Boag:
I am your filter. Yes. And I guess conferences as well. You love your conferences and you learn lots from that.
Marcus Lillington:
Yes I do, and I look at A List Apart.
Paul Boag:
So you do, you do look at more.
Marcus Lillington:
Yes but you kind of look at those to find ?
Paul Boag:
The ones that you might be interested in.
Marcus Lillington:
Yeah so this is kind of ? for this section of this particular show, it?s like not that kind of thing. I need to be finding something different.
Paul Boag:
Right.
Marcus Lillington:
So the first place I go is the BBC news site and I go that?s interesting, that?ll do.
Paul Boag:
All right.
Marcus Lillington:
So that?s the thinking behind it as well as obviously being hugely lazy and having no time.
Paul Boag:
Okay. So what is this one then? Microsoft do something.
Marcus Lillington:
Microsoft unveils self-sketching whiteboard prototype and I?m not even going to go into the ?
Paul Boag:
This just sounds insane. I mean either that?s the most undescriptive ?
indiscriptive, undescriptive, indescriptive?
Marcus Lillington:
Undescriptive.
Paul Boag:
Undescriptive title I have ever read on a post or Microsoft have basically released a whiteboard which you can just go home and your meeting notes end up on the board. It?s like self-sketching, what does that mean?
Marcus Lillington:
What it means is that you can start drawing stuff, diagrams, not just words and it will complete them for you. It?s intelligent enough to be able to come and think someone else ? it?s obviously a huge database ? I don?t know, God knows, read the article. But the reason why it caught my eye is I?ve never quite fallen in love with the iPad.
Paul Boag:
Right.
Marcus Lillington:
I?ve got Caroline?s old iPad 1 which I think is ? it?s as a resource for when you are watching the tele?
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
?and something comes up on an advert or something and you go, I?ll look that up. It?s a useful thing. But what I want it to be is something that I can take notes in properly.
Paul Boag:
Right.
Marcus Lillington:
Like I can with a notepad. I can draw stuff and I can do a big squirrelly line around to that note up there and put a circle around that and like people take notes free hand, I want to be able to do that on an iPad but I can?t. All I can really do is type.
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
Look at stuff and pull in links, fair enough. This looks like a step towards what I would like to be able to do.
Paul Boag:
Right.
Marcus Lillington:
As in basically you can just ? you can write with your finger or with a stylus I assume but do ? join stuff up, do diagrams and through magic ? I don?t know how it works, it helps you complete your diagrams.
Paul Boag:
Okay. But you could kind of ? I suppose it doesn?t do it completely but there is enough apps on the iPad that allow you to write handwriting and?
Marcus Lillington:
Oh I tried one, it was rubbish.
Paul Boag:
Yes. So you think this one is going to be better?
Marcus Lillington:
Well the fact that it?s a big board I think helps.
Paul Boag:
Yes, absolutely.
Marcus Lillington:
Yes, I don?t know. It warrants a news story.
Paul Boag:
Right.
Marcus Lillington:
So therefore it?s kind of possibly this prototype ? because it?s a prototype at the moment ? could end up being something cooler than?
Paul Boag:
So is this kind of things like if you draw ? is it that it completes it or is it just that it makes it pretty? So if you start drawing a pie chart it will turn it into a pretty pie chart.
Marcus Lillington:
Yeah I think that?s what it does. This is a pie chart, this is a bar graph or this is a graph, we?ll turn it into something that isn?t wobbly. I don?t know.
Paul Boag:
Yes, no that sounds?
Marcus Lillington:
And that is kind of cool.
Paul Boag:
That makes more sense in my head.
Marcus Lillington:
That?s a kind of cool thing and obviously you would be able to export what you?d done.
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
But yes, I mean I?ve tried one of the writing with your finger things on iPad and it?s just awful.
Paul Boag:
Well you have to zoom in and out so much in order to get anything small enough because you can?t do that level of detail that you can do with handwriting.
Marcus Lillington:
Yes.
Paul Boag:
It?s still got a long way to go, isn?t it, from that point of view.
Marcus Lillington:
But surely this must be the right way to go.
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
Do you know what I mean?
Paul Boag:
Yes, being able to ? the experience of writing handwriting on a screen is still really, really poor. Considering we?ve got voice dictation now that can understand our voice and turn it into text, how come you cannot, yes there is handwriting apps that can do OCR supposedly and turn it into text and that kind of thing but it?s shit. They are not very good. And you can?t even ? at the moment writing on screen is just such a poor experience, isn?t it, compared to writing on paper.
Marcus Lillington:
Yes. I can remember years and years ago, 15 years ago, we used to deal with touch screen apps.
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
Well touch screen kiosks.
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
Back in the day, apps, but we were designing for touch screen.
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
Big buttons and all the standard stuff. And that kind of died a death and I can remember all the way through the early 2000s thinking touch screen was really quite good.
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
And then the iPhone comes out. It?s like someone has bothered to do it properly. But we basically need Apple to do this, not Microsoft, as we?re talking about how brilliantly they do things earlier about the accessibility stuff on the iPhone. But yes maybe?
Paul Boag:
I think the big thing ? I think the big problem, see a whiteboard is easier, right. So you think about a whiteboard because it?s up on a wall so it?s vertical. And the way you write on a whiteboard compared to a piece of paper that?s horizontal, you rest your hand on the paper.
Marcus Lillington:
Yes.
Paul Boag:
That?s the trouble. And so from a touch point of view, unless you?ve got a stylus ?
Marcus Lillington:
This comes back to ? this is where I was going with this. And remember the first smartphones all had styluses and then it was all like stylus, ha.
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
But actually they are probably a really cool thing.
Paul Boag:
Yes. Because then because I remember I used to have the tablet, didn?t I, the compact back and that had handwriting on it.
Marcus Lillington:
Yes.
Paul Boag:
And that actually was quite good because it would only recognize the stylus, it wouldn?t recognize any other inputs. You could rest your hand on it.
Marcus Lillington:
Yes.
Paul Boag:
But even then the problem is that writing on a smooth surface means your handwriting slips, you are slipping the whole time. It?s not like writing pen on paper. And because pen and paper has got that friction to it that controls your handwriting and stops it kind of going really wavy and big, and they haven?t solved that either so there is a long way to go.
Marcus Lillington:
I am sure it?s fixable but yes somebody clever do it please for me.
Paul Boag:
Because Marcus wants to ? but I am beginning to reach the point of ? one of two things could happen here. Either the technology could come along that allows you to replicate the handwriting experience much better or people just stop handwriting.
Marcus Lillington:
No, these are really important ? alright, maybe we might evolve ?
Paul Boag:
He is waving his hands around there by the way.
Marcus Lillington:
Being able to do that is one of the most ? I am joining my finger and my thumb together is one of the most human things there is.
Paul Boag:
Yes sure, but that is the?
Marcus Lillington:
Talking about articles, since it?s the last ? this is the last episode in this series. There was an article, I can?t remember who, sorry, wrote about using devices like the iPhone and that it?s step one in 100. And was comparing it to using things like hammers and other tools. We use our hands.
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
All the time to do stuff.
Paul Boag:
Yes, I know.
Marcus Lillington:
Wish I could remember what that article was called.
Paul Boag:
But handwriting is just one way, typing is using your fingers.
Marcus Lillington:
Yes, true. But you can?t do as much when you type, you can only do text, you can?t do joining stuff up quickly.
Paul Boag:
Yes.
Marcus Lillington:
And drawing a little diagram and a picture, a smiley face.
Paul Boag:
Yes but that may be ? okay, I don?t know, I am just wondering. I find it quite interesting because my son is autistic as you know and one of the things that he has a real problem with is his handwriting. It?s all related in some way, I don?t quite understand it. And Cath?s getting quite fretting over his handwriting is holding him back in his schoolwork because he is an incredibly intelligent child but he has trouble with handwriting. And I keep going he isn?t going to handwrite in real life. How much ? I mean you handwrite quite a lot still but I hardly write anything by hand at all, I just
Source: http://boagworld.com/season/5/episode/s05e09/
10 year old gives birth c. difficile carmelo anthony nurse jackie nurse jackie peeps nhl playoffs
No comments:
Post a Comment