Author Archives: John Gibbard

Feb 12 2025
work

Amazon’s UX: Why Customers Ignore the Chaos

Amazon’s interface is a mess. Everyone knows it, doesn’t matter if you’re in the industry or you just use it to buy lightbulbs, the odd book and some fancy Tupperware. It’s the digital equivalent of a hoarder’s house, clutter everywhere. A friend of mine once memorably described looking for something as like “rummaging through a warehouse with a torch”, but [she does it because] “I know the bloody thing I want is in there somewhere”. On any given part of the site there’s inexplicable stacks of unrelated items, and a sense that at any moment, something might fall on you. My particular hate are sponsored listings, intruding like pushy sales reps with their irrelevant nonsense while you’re on the way to buy the actual thing you searched for (although sometimes the actual thing turns out to be a not-quite-there copy from some random far-east factory). Genuine customer reviews also get buried under an avalanche of SEO-stuffed nonsense, and yet, dear reader… here I am, ordering 90% of what I buy from Amazon. And you do too.

However frustrating the experience, it isn’t bad enough to drive people away. Fast delivery, sheer product choice, and a checkout process so frictionless it should be flagged with Gamble Aware. All of this outweighs the UX sins.

So, Does UX Even Matter?

It is a question worth asking. If a platform’s core proposition is so compelling, with cheap prices, instant gratification and no meaningful alternative, does the user experience really determine success? Or does it just need to be functional enough?

The Amazon Conundrum

Armchair critics love to dissect Amazon’s UX. In the dark corners of the UGC web, Reddit threads are full of users raging against the chaotic interface. Tech journos lament the aggressive Prime pushing, the pay-to-win search results. On paper, it’s a usability horror show. But let’s be clear, Amazon isn’t neglecting UX. It employs entire teams of UX designers, researchers, and engineers who are constantly refining the experience. Not to make it more elegant, but to make it better at selling things. If adding another sponsored listing increases revenue, they’ll do it. In 2022 alone, Amazon made over $31 billion from its advertising business, largely driven by these placements, making it a core part of their revenue model (Vox). If customers still find something to buy despite the friction, then as far as Amazon is concerned, the system is working just fine. The difficulty we have as UXers is understanding and reconciling this. Because we see ‘Sponsored’ listings trump the actual best-result search listing we say “This is wrong, users hate this!” but somewhere deep in Amazon HQ is the data to say, “You know what, they actually don’t, and here’s some more $” (EcommerceFuel and others provide further context on how Amazon’s sponsored listings work and why they persist). The same logic applies to other blunt instruments like relentless pop-ups (deeply irritating but demonstrably effective at nudging hesitant users into making a decision) and those blinking, anxiety-inducing countdown timers all over that Instagram brand’s shop aren’t there by accident either.

When UX Takes a Back Seat

Of course, Amazon is hardly alone. Plenty of other sites with objectively terrible UX remain dominant because their value proposition is simply stronger than the frustration they cause:

  • Booking.com drowns you in pop-ups and ‘Only 1 left at this price!’ warnings. Yet its vast selection and competitive pricing make it impossible to ignore.
  • British Airways’ website looks and feels like it’s been trapped in 2009, but people still book flights because, they will always believe the brand stands for something British and the pilots are the best trained and most decent in the skies.
  • Vinted The latest upstart eCommerce brand is having a runaway success in the UK but this is absolutely down to the simplified sell-send logistics and payment process, and definitely not to the bloody awful filtering and product exploration UX (seven different ways to filter on Ralph Lauren sweaters anyone?).
  • GP surgery websites, National Rail, car park booking systems, there’s a vast ecosystem of poorly designed necessities that survive because users effectively have no choice or poorly rationalise their value/essentialism.

This phenomenon isn’t anecdotal or lost on UX thinkers. As David C. Wyld argues in The Endless Battle Against Bad UX, poor usability is pervasive in major companies, and fixing it isn’t always a top priority. Similarly, The World is Running on Bad UI (Michal Malewicz) notes how many essential services and platforms operate on clunky, outdated interfaces yet remain functionally irreplaceable. Their insights reinforce the central argument here: bad UX doesn’t necessarily mean bad business.

The Captive Audience Factor

The obvious point here is that there is a difference between platforms like Amazon, where the UX is frustrating but functional, and services where users are stuck with whatever’s available. The difference with Government portals, legacy corporate systems, anything remotely tied to infrastructure is that these things aren’t just designed badly; they are fundamentally unmotivated to improve.

It’s not even a matter of UX being ignored (again, plenty of these organisations are populated by skilled and well-meaning design folks), it’s often a mix of limited budgets, outdated tech stacks, bureaucracy (many hands), and the sheer pain and complexity of rebuilding something that’s been patched together over decades.

The same logic applies to countless internal systems in large organisations, where usability takes a backseat to bureaucratic inertia and legacy technology. Everyone grumbles about it, but change is slow, and innovation rarely prioritises the dull but essential parts of work life. Just as no one is investing to replace the office microwave that’s been there since the turn of the millennium, so we continue to suffer through whatever shitey interface we’re given.

The Reluctance to Overhaul

Could Amazon wholesale overhaul its UX if it wanted to? Technically, yes. But would it be worth it? Probably not. The site is a sprawling ecosystem of millions of products, channels and third-party sellers, advertising deals, and logistics chains. Trying to impose a sleek, minimalist interface would mean unpicking the very mechanics that drive sales at an enormous cost.

The same goes for other massive platforms. The bigger and more layered a system becomes, the harder (read more expensive) it is to rebuild from the ground up. This is exactly the scenario I described in The Local Maximum Problem, where businesses become trapped in cycles of micro-optimisation rather than taking bold steps toward meaningful UX improvements. Businesses, especially ones as enormous and entrenched as Amazon, often optimise for small, short-term gains instead of taking the risk of a complete overhaul. They’ve reached a peak where micro-adjustments keep the machine running, even if they don’t solve fundamental UX flaws. Redesigning from scratch is a leap into the unknown, and when the current setup is still printing money, who would take that risk? Maybe they update a search filter. Maybe they tweak the layout slightly. But the underlying experience remains a Frankenstein’s monster of competing priorities.

So, Does UX Matter?

Yes, but not in the way purists would like to believe. Good UX reduces friction, increases trust, and improves efficiency, but it doesn’t always dictate whether people use a platform. When the value proposition is strong enough, users will tolerate a lot.

The idealistic view is that platforms should improve out of respect for their users. But what do you think? Have you ever abandoned a platform because of its terrible UX, or do you find yourself sticking with frustrating experiences because the value proposition is just too strong? Perhaps if people keep clicking, why fix what isn’t broken?

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Sep 13 2024
running, work

Asics Overcomplicates the Runner’s Journey

What’s worse than realising your favourite running shoe has finally given up the ghost? Watching someone else avoid that realisation for 18 months and risk an almost inevitable injury as the shoe disintegrates before our eyes. That someone, in this case, is the mother of my children, and the dearly departed in question is her much-loved, overworked Asics Gel-DS Trainers. Those shoes have put in a hell of a shift. Thousands of kilometres on pavements, parkruns, and everything in between, and she’s been putting off replacing them because Asics, in their infinite wisdom, decided to discontinue them. Ironic, really, considering they now offer what seems like an ever-expanding collection of new models that are aligned to a hundred sub-genres of our sport.

So, armed with determination and a misplaced sense of optimism, I ventured onto the Asics website, thinking, “How hard can it be to find a suitable replacement?” Fool. Absolute fool.

What followed was not so much a straightforward shopping experience as a complex game of hide-and-seek with 100+ models of women’s running shoes. I began narrowing things down: size 5.5—okay, now we’re at 80 options. Neutral pronation—down to 54. Road running—down to 46. Surely, at this point, I’d found a clear path. Instead, I was still faced with an onslaught of variants. The Metaspeed, for example, comes in Edge+ and Sky+ (for stride runners and cadence runners, respectively). Then there’s the Nimbus with a Platinum version, because apparently, even running shoes need luxury trims these days. Add in the Cumulus GTX, Lite-Show, and Noosa Tri, and it quickly started to feel like I’d stumbled into Asics’ fashion line instead of a practical search for neutral road shoes.

The Asics Maze
Even after filtering, I was still staring at something like 46 items. Surely, price could help narrow things down? Not quite. More expensive didn’t necessarily mean better, and so using price as a guide only added to the confusion. Was the extra cost because of space-age tech, or was it just a fancy colourway? No way to tell.

Take the Metaspeed and Superblast—both at the top end of the price range. Are they substantially better than the Gel-Pulse or Magic Speed? It depends on what you’re after. The pro models may have carbon plates and advanced cushioning, but that doesn’t mean they’re always the right choice for someone looking for a lightweight, fast shoe for 10k runs.

In the world of running shoes, price can mean anything—or nothing at all. Sometimes minimal, no-frills shoes can be cheaper simply because they don’t have much in them. Other times, pro-level shoes are expensive for performance reasons. Either way, price is a poor guide to what’s actually suited to you.

The Absurd Complexity of Asics’ Product Strategy
By this point, I was beginning to wonder who Asics had in mind when they designed this labyrinth of choice. Surely, even they must know that offering this many variants doesn’t create more positive choices—it just creates more confusion. I’d managed to reduce my options to 10 models across 16 variants, but there was still no sign of the shoe closest to the Gel-DS Trainer—the GT-2000. Apparently, Asics decided it belongs in the “stability” category, even though it offers nearly the same stability, weight, and cushioning as the Gel-DS. So there it sat, hidden in plain sight.

From a product strategy perspective, this is inefficient at best and counterproductive at worst. Developing, marketing, and maintaining so many similar models must be both expensive and confusing for the customer. Asics are doing a fantastic job of overwhelming the very people they’re trying to help, all while bloating their own production processes.

Fixing the Problem
So, what’s the fix? It’s not rocket science. What they need is a simplified, user-friendly approach that doesn’t leave customers feeling cognitively drained before they’ve even tied their laces.

Let’s start with better filters. The current system is too blunt. Instead of “road” or “neutral,” how about additional more useful filters like “lightweight,” “minimal cushioning,” or “designed for 10k runs”? Filters that speak directly to the practical needs of runners would make the entire process far more intuitive.

And, of course, an AI-powered product recommender would go a long way. Imagine inputting a few key details—distance, surface, weight preferences—and getting a personalised recommendation that actually fits your needs. No more second-guessing whether the Metaspeed Sky+ is right for you or why the GT-2000 doesn’t even show up. Other industries have embraced AI to simplify decision-making, and there’s no reason Asics can’t do the same.

Finally, streamlining the product range. Asics just doesn’t need so many variants of the same shoe. And when you consider they’re competing with the likes of Nike, Adidas, Hoka, and others, all with their multiple model variants chasing the same customer, it makes even less sense. Simplifying their product line would not only help the consumer, but it would also cut their own operational costs. Less clutter, more clarity—it’s a win-win.

In Summary
In the end, trying to replace the Gel-DS Trainer wasn’t just about shoe shopping—it turned into a case study of how not to design a user journey. Asics, with their 100+ models and endless variants, have created a labyrinth that even seasoned runners struggle to navigate. And in doing so, they’ve not only alienated customers but also made their own operations less efficient.

What Asics needs is a return to basics: a simplified product range, a streamlined user experience, and filters and tools that actually reflect the way runners think and shop. Less focus on obscure variants, and more on clear, understandable options that meet practical needs. An AI-powered recommender and better faceted filters are two easy steps to fix this.

Because, let’s face it, nobody should need a flowchart to buy a pair of running shoes. In a world where brands like Asics are meant to help runners perform better, they have forgotten the most basic rule: make the choice simple—and let us make the running bit as hard as we like.

Tagged , , , , ,
Jul 26 2024
work

Rivian’s Decision to Exclude Apple CarPlay: A Closer Examination

Rivian’s decision to exclude Apple CarPlay from their vehicles is intriguing, especially given the recent advancements unveiled at Apple’s WWDC 2024. As someone deeply invested in human-centred design and automotive innovation, I believe this strategy warrants a closer look.

Apple’s next-generation CarPlay promises unprecedented levels of integration and customisation. The updated system allows for dynamic content, personalised interfaces, and comprehensive vehicle integration, enabling a seamless blend of technology and branding. Manufacturers like Porsche and Aston Martin are already leveraging these capabilities to enhance their user experience, blending their brand identity with advanced, user-friendly technology.

Rivian, however, is not alone in its cautious approach. Mercedes Benz were vocal about it, and General Motors (GM), for example, has decided to phase out both Apple CarPlay and Android Auto in favour of developing its own integrated system using Android Automotive. This move, driven by the desire to maintain greater control over the user experience and address connectivity issues, underscores a broader industry trend towards proprietary solutions.

Rivian’s CEO, RJ Scaringe, has cited potential reliability concerns as a significant factor in their decision. This is a valid issue faced by other automakers, such as GM, who have experienced connectivity problems with CarPlay and off-board Android Auto. Unreliable connections can disrupt critical vehicle functions, which poses safety risks if, for example, the speedometer or other essential displays fail. Critics argue that CarPlay provides a level of familiarity and seamless integration that proprietary systems cannot match. The tight integration of personal data and functions (contacts, smart home, music, map locations) I use hourly on my phone with in-car systems is invaluable. My CarPlay interface knows far more about my life and responds accordingly than my OEM onboard system, which learns only about my journeys and some of my entertainment choices. Connecting all of this once rather than logging into each different third-party service makes far more sense. This aspect of familiarity is often underplayed in discussions about in-car technology.

Apple’s next-generation CarPlay includes features like dynamic content, personalised interfaces, and comprehensive vehicle integration. These capabilities allow automakers to maintain their brand identity while offering users a familiar and highly functional interface. It’s perhaps a sign of the role of the human interface in luxury experiences that the early adopters are the prestige automakers, Porsche, and Aston Martin, who have committed to integrating this advanced system in their vehicles, recognising the value it adds to the user experience.

Critics of Rivian’s decision, like those at The Autopian, argue that the benefits of CarPlay, including user satisfaction and brand loyalty, far outweigh the potential drawbacks. Many drivers are already accustomed to the seamless integration that CarPlay offers, and removing this feature could alienate a significant portion of potential buyers. TechRadar suggests that Rivian’s stated reasons might omit more strategic motivations, such as the desire to keep users within their own ecosystem to control the data and user experience more tightly. This strategic choice might be more about control and data than purely about user experience or technical concerns.

A more critical view highlights concerns about reliability and antitrust issues. For instance, if CarPlay were to take over critical displays and experience a connectivity issue, it could leave drivers without access to essential information like speed or fuel levels. This is a legitimate concern shared by other automakers and regulatory bodies.

Adding to the discussion, many OEMs have struggled with integrating voice assistants like Siri effectively. The experience with in-car voice assistants remains patchy, often falling short of the seamless interaction users expect from their smartphones. This inconsistency can detract from the overall user experience, making a strong case for the integration of well-established systems like CarPlay, which many users find more reliable and intuitive​​​​.

Moreover, the move towards removing physical buttons in favour of touchscreens for controls like HVAC systems has been widely criticised. While touchscreens offer a sleek, modern look, they can be less intuitive and more distracting to use while driving. Physical buttons provide tactile feedback and can be operated without looking away from the road, which enhances safety. The combination of these elements—voice command reliability and the usability of physical controls—are essential considerations in the design of a user-friendly automotive interface​​​​.

As someone who values both innovation and practicality, I see the potential for Rivian to enhance their user experience by integrating Apple’s advanced CarPlay features. It’s about finding a middle ground that respects both innovation and the unique identity of their vehicles. The familiarity and seamless integration that CarPlay offers are invaluable, yet I also appreciate the reliability and specialised knowledge that OEMs bring to in-car systems, especially in challenging environments or when wireless connections are unreliable.

In a rapidly evolving automotive landscape, the ultimate goal remains clear: delivering an intuitive, cohesive, and enjoyable driving experience. By keeping an open mind towards such integrations, Rivian could enhance its position as a leader in automotive innovation.

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Nov 14 2023
work

The Complexity and Nuance in Human-Centred Design: Beyond the ‘Average’ User

The Measure of Man; Human Factors in Design, by Henry Dreyfuss

Our practice of human-centred design often grapples with a paradoxical question: “By designing for everyone, are we inadvertently designing for no one?” This post aims to dissect this conundrum, exploring the pitfalls of designing for an ‘average’ user, examining the balance between quantitative and qualitative research in UX design, and deciphering the complexity of individual human behaviours and decision-making processes.

The Pitfalls of Average-Based Design

Designing for an average user is common shortcut (even where an average is a persona), but history provides compelling evidence of its limitations. The U.S. Air Force’s 1950s endeavour to redesign aircraft cockpits for the ‘average’ pilot led to startling revelations. Researcher Gilbert S. Daniels discovered that none of the pilots conformed to the average across ten measured dimensions, highlighting the diversity in human physicality and producing a cockpit which, literally, suited no-one. This example resonates profoundly in digital design, where interfaces and experiences cater to an even broader spectrum of cognitive and emotional diversity. When design targets the average, it often misses the mark for most users, leaving out those who fall outside the narrowly defined average parameters.

The Role of Research in UX Design:

In UX design, data-driven insights are invaluable. Quantitative research, with its large-scale surveys and analytics, offers a bird’s-eye view of user behaviour, identifying common patterns and trends. This approach, however, can overlook the rich, nuanced experiences of individuals. Qualitative research fills this gap by delving into the subjective, personal experiences of users. Interviews, focus groups, and ethnographic studies offer a deeper understanding of the motivations, frustrations, and desires that drive user behaviour. Balancing these two research paradigms is crucial in creating digital experiences that are not only statistically sound but also emotionally resonant and personally relevant. Of course, comissioning proper quantititve research is a much harder challenge with our clients than using online tools to gobble up the quant or semi-qual research that gives us only part of the picture.

Understanding the Fluidity of User Decision-Making:

The variability in human behaviour is strikingly evident in decision-making processes and something we’ve become quite obessed with in my world of automotive consumer behaviour. Consider the journey of purchasing a premium car. Initially, a prospective customer might be driven by impulse and aesthetics, attracted to sleek designs and innovative features. However, as the decision process evolves, practicality takes precedence. The customer mindset evolves, they begin to weigh technical specifications, practicality, economy, customer service reputation, and value for money. This transition from an exploratory to a pragmatic mindset within the same individual illustrates the fluid nature of decision-making. It also contrasts sharply with the variability across different user demographics, where factors like age, cultural background, and technical familiarity significantly influence purchasing behaviour. It’s why my team and I don’t work with demographic personas and instead talk about the motivations and needs of a customer at specific stages in the customer journey.

Embracing Flexibility and Inclusion in Design:

To address this complexity to any degree, designers must pivot towards creating flexible and inclusive interfaces. In practical terms this involves designing for a range of abilities, knowledge and preferences, ensuring that digital products are accessible and usable by as many people as possible, reflective of how they will change. Techniques like progressive and responsive design, which allows content to adapt to different screen sizes and orientations, and adaptive user interfaces, which can adjust to a user’s specific needs and preferences, are essential. Personalisation also plays a key role, offering users the ability to tailor their digital experiences to their unique tastes and requirements and for content providers to reflect the journeys and interactions we know users have already undertaken. This might mean that the product page we show you the first time you visit us is presnted in quite a different way to the one you see in subsequent visits, or if we learn something more about you from other interactions.

TL/DR; Conclusions:

The challenge of designing for a diverse and dynamic user base is daunting yet rewarding. By recognising and embracing the multifaceted nature of human behaviour and decision-making, designers can move beyond the limiting concept of the ‘average’ user. Integrating both quantitative and qualitative research, acknowledging the unpredictability of human behaviour, and adopting principles of flexible and inclusive design, are key to creating digital experiences that resonate on a broader scale. In doing so, we not only make our designs more accessible and relevant to a wider audience but also acknowledge and celebrate the uniqueness of each individual. This is the essence of true human-centred design – where every user matters, and design is a reflection of the breadth and depth of human diversity.

Tagged , ,
Oct 18 2023
work

The Liberating Power of Owning Your Failures in Design

Embrace the Unknown to Foster Authenticity, Growth, and Innovation

Confidence and expertise are hallmarks of success in the design world—whether you’re an architect, a UI/UX designer, or a graphic artist. But let’s face it, everyone has gaps in their knowledge and skills. Moreover, in a field that is evolving at a lightning-fast pace, it’s simply impossible to know everything. So, why are we so afraid to admit either that we don’t have all the answers or that the solution we came up with was plain wrong?

I recently came across two compelling articles that made me rethink this attitude of infallibility that we so often chase in our professional lives. The first, from Behavioral Scientist, explored the psychological benefits of admitting when you don’t know something. The second, by Paul Boag on Boagworld, delved into user interface design, highlighting the limitations and common errors even seasoned designers make. It struck me that the fusion of these insights can offer an invaluable lesson for design professionals: Embrace your failures and gaps in knowledge to pave the way for growth, innovation, and a more genuine connection with your audience.

The Psychological Upsides of Saying “I Don’t Know”
Let’s start by looking at the innate human fears of admitting we don’t know something. It’s as if acknowledging our ignorance is tantamount to admitting incompetence which would understandably deemed unacceptable in a professional setting. However, studies show that the opposite may be true and this should be something to acknowledge readily. Recognising the limits of our knowledge can increase our credibility and encourage more cooperative behaviour from others.

Not only does admitting you don’t know help you internally by freeing up cognitive resources that would otherwise be spent on maintaining a façade, but it also positively impacts how others perceive you. Psychologically, it humanises you, making you more relatable and approachable. Additionally, it leaves room for collaboration, inviting others to contribute their knowledge and perspectives.

Applying This Wisdom to the World of Design
Now, let’s tie this back to design. Like many fields, the world of design is filled with unspoken norms and unwritten rules that everyone is supposed to know but no one talks about. Whether you’re presenting at a prestigious design conference or showing your portfolio in a job interview, the pressure to showcase a spotless track record of success can be overwhelming.

However, by taking the bold step of highlighting not just your successes but also your failures, you invite conversation, collaboration, and critique. Most importantly, you stand to learn and grow both professionally and personally and, crucially appear human and relatable.

Case Study: the Millennium Bridge
Take, for example, the initial failure of the Millennium Bridge in London, which had to be closed just days after its opening due to swaying. The teams involved have variously acknowledged the collective failure that led to the extensive corrective solution and through the transparent sharing and public analysis of the problem the engineering, architecture and design team helped the community learn valuable lessons about the complex interplay of materials, design, and human behaviour – lessons that no doubt enriched future projects. Their openness about this failure not only humanised the individuals involved but also served as a learning experience for aspiring architects and designers.

Case Study: Me
I have had the task to redesign and rearchitect the navigation of Jaguar and Land Rover‘s website navigation on two occasions and on both attempts, I’ve been unhappy with the outcome. In these instances we variously used analytics to determine the most valuable content, we used heatmaps and click maps. We undertook card-sorting exercises, did desk research and relied on benchmark reports from the likes of Psyma and JD Power. We deployed good designers and UX architects on the job and a copy team. Even so, the end results have felt underwhelming and suffered from inconsistencies across international markets and when viewed on a wider variety of devices (viewports). We got it wrong, twice. We’re pretty sure now we know what we (as a wider team) got wrong and we’re excited about the future versions we’ll be deploying. Part of what I learned in the process has been to trust my gut as an experienced UX architect and the paradox that sometimes too much research, harvested with different agendas and inconsistently interpreted, can significantly muddy the waters.

Owning Your Failures Online
In the age of social media, where a curated image can overshadow the messy, intricate reality of professional life, owning your failures becomes even more crucial. Posting about your design challenges or projects that didn’t go as planned provides a more authentic view of your journey. This transparency not only humanises you but also makes you more relatable to others who are grappling with their own challenges, particularly at the start of their career or when wrestling with imposter syndrome.

Embracing failure and admitting gaps in your knowledge isn’t a weakness; it’s an essential part of growth in the design profession. Acknowledging our limitations fosters a culture of collaboration, innovation, and authenticity. Rather than just flaunting your successes, own your failures as well—they’re valuable learning experiences that contribute to both your personal growth and the broader design community.

To quote the brilliant designer and educator, Paula Scher, “It’s through mistakes that you actually can grow. You have to get bad in order to get good.”

Now, isn’t that liberating?

Tagged , , , ,
Apr 03 2023
work

Nurturing Skepticism and Inquiry: A Psychological Perspective on Encouraging Critical Thinking

Socrates, he liked people to ask questions. Perhaps too many?

If you’re having a friendly chat with a mate at work or the pub, or going down a Twitter reply hole, it’s not that unusual that you find yourself stumbling into a debate about something you were taught in school or a compelling argument you read some time ago. You’re dead sure of your position, and it’s pretty difficult sometimes to honestly question what you’ve been taught. 

In today’s post, I want to explore the pathology behind this response, as summed up by Feynman’s famous quote:

“The problem is not people being uneducated. The problem is that people are educated just enough to believe what they have been taught, but not educated enough to question what they have been taught“.

Cognitive Psychology and Education

Cognitive psychology is the study of mental processes like thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making. This branch of psychology teaches us that our brains are wired with a host of biases that can make us prone to simply accepting information we’ve been taught without a second thought. Let’s take a look at some of the big ones:

Confirmation bias: We’re more likely to search for, remember, and believe information that confirms our existing beliefs. We’re all guilty of it – it’s just how our brains work – but it means we might not be questioning what we’ve been taught if it lines up with what we already think and the balance of information in volume and saliency is all aligned to supporting that original belief.

The availability heuristic: This bias refers to our tendency to judge the likelihood of events based on how easily examples come to mind. So, if we’ve been taught something and it’s fresh in our minds, we’re more likely to think it’s true, even if it’s not. It might mean that the last person you heard speak on a topic in a meeting, for example, is the one that most strongly influences your opinion.

Illusory truth effect: Last but not least, this sneaky bias is when we’re more likely to believe the information we’ve heard repeatedly, regardless of its accuracy. In other words, if we’ve been taught something multiple times, we’re more inclined to believe it without questioning. It’s not difficult to see how this bias combined with the confirmation bias above builds a compelling defence against novel and contradictory information.

So, what can we do about these biases? A clear solution is to develop our critical thinking skills – you know, that thing your teachers always told you was important but never really explained why? Critical thinking helps us evaluate information more objectively and question what we’ve been taught. Sadly, whilst this type of Socratic thinking has been promoted for decades in the British education system, it remains on the sidelines as something to be spotted hopefully alongside student’s skill in particular subjects. The natural consequence of ‘good teaching’ rather than being called out (at least in the state system) as a specific competency that can be evaluated.

Evolutionary Psychology and the Desire to Conform

Evolutionary psychology is the study of how our mental processes have evolved to adapt to our environment. One key aspect of our evolution as social animals is our tendency to conform to group norms – after all, fitting in with the tribe meant a better chance of survival.

However, this need to conform can also make us more likely to accept what we’ve been taught without question. As the saying goes, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do,” but sometimes, the Romans might be wrong! So, how can we strike a balance between our evolutionary need to conform and our ability to think critically?

One approach is to create a culture of open-mindedness and healthy debate, where it’s not only accepted but encouraged to question the status quo and challenge commonly held beliefs. By fostering an environment that values curiosity and inquiry, we can better balance our innate desire to conform with the need for critical thinking. It’s not about rejecting our evolutionary instincts, but rather about adapting them to our modern world, where diverse perspectives and rigorous questioning can lead to richer knowledge and understanding.

Social Psychology and the Influence of Authority

Finally, let’s dive into social psychology, which explores how our thoughts, feelings, and behaviours are influenced by the presence of others. It turns out that authority figures can have a massive impact on our belief formation, sometimes leading us to accept information without question (“I was just following orders!”). We’ve all bemoaned the colleague or client that only seems to listen to the loudest voice in the room.

Two classic experiments can shed some light on this phenomenon:

The Milgram experiment: This infamous study by Stanley Milgram revealed that a whopping 65% of participants were willing to administer what they believed were dangerous electric shocks to an innocent person, simply because they were instructed to do so by an authority figure. It’s a chilling reminder of the power of authority in shaping our actions.

The Asch conformity experiments: These studies by Solomon Asch demonstrated that people are more likely to conform to the majority opinion, even when it’s wrong, if they perceive that the majority is supported by an authority figure. In other words, if our teachers, a best-selling author, a TV personality or other authority figures tell us something is true, we’re more inclined to believe it without question.

So, what can we do to counter the influence of authority on our beliefs? One strategy is to cultivate a culture of healthy scepticism and encourage the questioning of authority figures when necessary. This doesn’t mean we should disrespect or disregard authority, but rather, that we should learn to evaluate information based on its merits rather than blindly accepting it due to the status of the person presenting it. It was a little baffling to me to see so much criticism being levelled at people through the pandemic who were politely questioning ‘the science’ and authority, as anyone sensible should have been doing, and how terms like ‘peer review’ were being held out as the ultimate defence to close down any debate.

So several factors can make us more likely to believe what we’ve been taught without question. From cognitive biases to our evolutionary need for conformity to the influence of authority figures, it’s clear that our minds are not always as objective and rational as we might like to believe, a story which sounds tediously familiar from human-centred bloggers like me. But it’s certainly not as simple as to take the line that it’s a failure of education, more that it’s a failure of a sufficient focus in education to strengthen the skills to push back against very powerful cognitive and social biases. 

The good news of course is that we can take steps to counter these influences by promoting critical thinking, fostering a culture of open-mindedness and healthy debate, and nurturing a healthy scepticism of authority. By doing so, we can better navigate the challenge that will lead to a more enlightened and well-informed society.

This post was cross-posted and shared on LinkedIn 3rd April 2023

Tagged , , , , , ,
Mar 31 2023
work

One of these things is not like the other

Still from the famous Sesame Street song: “One of these things is not like the other”​ Source: YouTube

False equivalence is a logical fallacy where two opposing arguments are presented as equally valid or comparable despite their differences, and it seems to me to be particularly prolific and, dare I say it, an infantile tactic to (try to) win arguments on Twitter. Partly this post was inspired by the frankly brilliant “Jews Don’t Count” documentary I watched recently on Ch4 (I confess I haven’t yet read the book) which returned to the topic a few times in trying to understand why antisemitism and other forms of racism are often incorrectly compared and contrasted with different standards applied. 

On the surface of it, false equivalence just seems tiresome and lazy, but I wanted to dust off some of the psychology books and dig into why it’s so often used, and perhaps to see if there’s anything we can do to limit the tendency to turn to it.

The Allure of False Equivalence (FE): 

The prevalence of false equivalence on Twitter could be chalked up to it being a low-effort cognitive strategy used to score a ‘quick win’ against opponents in a debate. Our cognitive biases may lead us to reach for seemingly comparable examples that, upon closer examination, aren’t equivalent at all. This behaviour could be driven by the desire to appear clever, the need to simplify convoluted issues, or the influence of confirmation bias (a tendency to interpret new information in a way that confirms our pre-existing beliefs). Cognitive psychology identifies various other heuristics and biases that may contribute to the use of false equivalence. For example, the availability heuristic suggests that people rely on readily available information, even if it’s not representative of the broader context. This could lead individuals to draw on superficially similar examples to support their arguments, without considering the nuances that make them different. Moreover, the anchoring bias – the tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information encountered – can further contribute to false equivalence as it over-weights the importance of that first bit of information.

Let’s take a look at some typical examples of FE

Comparing the use of Nitrous Oxide to Class A drug use.

It should be perfectly possible to acknowledge that these things are wildly different with different prevention strategies whilst acknowledging that both are evidently harmful to people and society.

Comparing British imperialism with the rise of Communist imperialism in China and Soviet Russia.

British imperialism was characterised by colonisation, exploitation of resources, and the heavy-handed application of British culture and governance structures in colonised territories. In contrast, Communist imperialism focused on the spread of communism, in the Soviet case through the establishment of satellite states and the widespread use of military force to maintain control. Using historic examples to justify the context of modern imperialism is patently flawed.

Comparing refugees fleeing persecution, war and abuse with undocumented economic migrants seeking to cross a border.

One is a humanitarian catastrophe for which the vast majority of people have a huge amount of compassion and would support efforts to resolve, the other has an entirely different context of pull factors and perhaps public perception. Even if they end up paying the same people trafficker to end up in the same dinghy on the same stretch of water.

Comparing mass shootings to road traffic deaths.

Ignoring the context of how cars are typically used and how road traffic accidents occur to make the argument that ‘banning cars’ is a comparable action to removing guns from society is a classic fallacy seen repeatedly online.

Comparing vaccination to wearing a bike helmet or mandated seatbelt.

Vaccination protects the individual and wider society through herd immunity with varying levels of scientific consensus, a seatbelt protects an individual but is a mandated requirement based on irrefutable scientific evidence of efficacy, and a bike helmet is an unregulated recommendation for an individual based on overwhelming scientific evidence.

What is it about Twitter that exacerbates FE?

Unsurprisingly, deploying FE can lead to misunderstandings and misrepresentations, making it rather challenging to engage in productive conversations and the character limit and fast-paced nature of Twitter exacerbate the issue. User may unintentionally or intentionally oversimplify complex arguments to fit within the physical constraints or pressure to respond at speed, most likely on a mobile device having done little to no research.

In the tumultuous world of Twitter, it’s not uncommon to find users chiming in on topics beyond their realm of expertise. While everyone should have the right to share their opinions, this tendency introduces a conundrum: subject matter experts (SMEs) often have less visibility than influencers who are popular in unrelated domains, resulting in an inversion of perceived value in their opinions.

As we navigate the choppy waters of Twitter debates, it’s essential to recognise that popularity doesn’t necessarily equate to expertise. Distinguishing between the voices of SMEs and those of influential figures whose expertise lies elsewhere can help to ensure that we’re engaging with informed opinions and fostering a more accurate and insightful discourse.

To avoid drowning in the sea of false equivalence, it’s crucial to 

  • Be mindful of the context and specific details of each argument. 
  • Compare the severity, consequences, and evidence supporting each side.
  • Beware of oversimplifications or distortions. 

All this means is taking a little longer to respond, and a little more time to think and consider.

To constructively challenge false equivalence, it’s best to ask for clarification or provide additional information that highlights the differences between the two arguments. Encourage open and respectful dialogue, focusing on the nuances and complexities of each situation.

In summary

False equivalence is a pervasive problem on Twitter, often leading to misconstrued arguments and unproductive discussions. By understanding the cognitive biases and heuristics that contribute to this fallacy, we can become more aware of our thought processes and foster a healthier discourse on the platform.

Related reading:

“False equivalence: how ‘balance’ makes the media dangerously dumb“, Bob Garfield, The Guardian

“False Equivalence: The Problem with Unreasonable Comparisons“, Dr. Itamar Shatz, Effectiviology


This post was originally created and shared on LinkedIn 31st March 2023.

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Mar 25 2023
work

Human-Centred Garden Design: Crafting Outdoor Spaces for Real People and Meaningful Experiences

For too long, garden design has been preoccupied with the designer’s narrative, often neglecting the end user’s experience. In the last decade, this trend, most obviously identified in the RHS Show season, led to a curious neglect in truly considering the people who would inhabit our outdoor spaces. It’s time to shift our perspective and embrace human-centred design principles in garden design, creating more engaging, meaningful experiences. I’ve made no secret to friends and colleagues that I would love to add garden design to my portfolio and bring to it the skills I’ve developed in 25 years of user-centric thinking. So, inspired by examining the work of four of my favourite designers, Annika Zetterman, Dan Pearson Studio, Pollyanna Wilkinson, and Ulf Nordfjell, perhaps I can show you that we can chart a new course in this direction.

No alt text provided for this image
New Nordic Gardens, Lidingö @annikazetterman https://www.instagram.com/newnordicgardens/

First up, Swedish landscape architect Annika Zetterman who designs modern, functional gardens (above) that blend natural elements with contemporary aesthetics. Her work is a prime example of human-centred design, as she focuses on the needs and desires of those who will use the space, demonstrated by her sophisticated integration of functional elements and materiality with a tightly curated palette of planting. Zetterman’s gardens encourage interaction, exploration, and enjoyment, providing accessible pathways, inviting seating areas, and even edible gardens all of which reflect and understand how the landscape and environment evolves with seasonality.

No alt text provided for this image
Dan Pearson @coyotewillow https://www.instagram.com/coyotewillow/

Dan Pearson, a British landscape designer, is celebrated for his complex naturalistic schemes. Yet, the essence of his work lies in its focus on the relationship between people and their environment. Pearson’s gardens promote a deep sense of connection and belonging, as they encourage users to engage with nature. His work, which by the way is mind-boggling complex and exacting the details, is a testament to the importance of working with nature and reflecting a human-centred view of the world, without the need for spurious socio-political narratives.

No alt text provided for this image
Pollyanna Wilkson @pollyanna_wilkinson https://www.instagram.com/p/CFASzhLA6j1/

Pollyanna Wilkinson’s sustainable, wildlife-friendly gardens place the user experience at their heart. Her designs are horticulturally informed, visually stunning while remaining beneficial to the environment and local ecosystems. Wilkinson’s work is in my view to be much admired for its focus on real people’s experiences in domestic settings, sidestepping heavy-handed narratives and catering to and honest, relatable human scale. Her gardens foster intimacy and attentiveness to the people and fauna that interact within the space.

No alt text provided for this image
PRIVATE GARDEN II, Nordfjell Collection nordfjellcollection.se

Ulf Nordfjell, another Swedish landscape architect, is renowned for his minimalist, elegant designs. It was Ulf’s work that got me interested in garden design, over and above my previous assumption it was pretty much just ‘picking some plants’. Drawing on Scandinavian traditions, Nordfjell’s work features clean lines, simple geometry, and precisely chosen planting schemes. Despite their often minimalist appearance, his gardens embody human-centred design principles, offering inviting spaces that promote relaxation, contemplation, and connection to the natural world. Nordfjell’s work frequently includes larger structures and perhaps a little more sculpture in them, but in all cases these are complementary rather than incongruous statements.

These four designers, although wildly different in their execution, demonstrate how human-centred design can revitalise contemporary garden design. By shifting the focus from the designer’s story to the end user’s experience, we can create outdoor spaces that are more engaging, functional, and meaningful. As I’ve mentioned in my previous writings on user experience and behavioural psychology, understanding and catering to human motivations and behaviours are crucial in designing spaces that resonate with people.

In the last decade or so, as I see it, too many gardens were designed as showcases for the designer’s ego (ironically Diarmaid has appeared on a podcast talking about HCD so I’ll just about forgive him for the gimmick of his 2016 effort with its solid octagonal folly and a formal terrace of clipped box, that every that every 15 mins rotated and moved around), or as crass art pieces, rather than havens for the people who would actually use them. By embracing the principles of human-centred design, we can shift the paradigm and create gardens that truly enrich the lives of their users. Let’s look to the work of Zetterman, Pearson, Wilkinson, and Nordfjell as inspiration for a new era in garden design, one where the needs and desires of people take centre stage.

As I have written previously on this blog, a human-centred approach can lead to creativity and innovation while avoiding homogenous, derivative, or sterile work. By embracing the plurality of human motivations, behaviours, and the endless variety of the environment and content, the human-centred designer can find infinite opportunities for creativity and innovation. In the end, this is as appealing as any Gold Medal from the RHS.

Tagged , , , , ,
Mar 23 2023
work

Confidence in inconsistency – human centred design should embrace thoughtful deviations from patterns and standards.

Consistently inconsistent burger menu designs. Is a burger menu the right solution in all your user’s contexts?

Consistency is a fundamental principle in design, and it is often cited as a key factor in creating a seamless and intuitive user experience – it’s easier to learn an interface that’s the same as those you’ve seen before. However, the blind pursuit of consistency can stifle innovation and lead to a lack of creativity and diversity in design solutions. In this blog post, I’ll explore why designers need to have confidence in inconsistency and break free from the overemphasis on consistency.

The way we think about consistency in design has been influenced by a moralistic, hectoring approach that emphasises consistency as a virtue, rather than a means to an end. This has led to a tendency to view inconsistency as a failure, rather than a potential innovative solution that provides a better match for user knowledge and needs. Instead of focusing solely on consistency, we should approach design critique with more consideration for the user and their unique context, asking questions that prioritise user experience and satisfaction over adherence to pre-existing patterns or rules.

The Problem with Mindless Consistency

Consistency can be a double-edged sword in design. While it can help users learn how to use interfaces easily and make products more usable, too much consistency can limit creativity and stifle innovation. In simple terms, it’s impossible to innovate and be consistent at the same time.

Overemphasis on consistency might lead to a lack of variety and visual interest in digital experiences. Users can quickly become bored or disengaged if all products and interfaces within a product suite look and feel the same. In some cases, this can lead to a decline in user engagement and adoption. In my experience working across financial services websites an obsessive desire for consistency meant that the numerous minor variations across, say, a portfolio of insurance or investment product pages meant that they all blended in to one homogenous impenetrable mess. And, when stepping back, did it even make sense that car insurance pages followed the same template as home insurance, or for that matter life insurance? Anna Arteva articulates a different scenario where the repetitive consistency of modules in their design reduced comprehension.

This is, of course seen most evidently in the band homogeneity shown with many web experiences within industry sectors like fashion, automotive, or SAAS. Leaving designs restricted by cut and paste design systems and left to play around with typefaces, colour, photography and illustrations to desperately cling to some sort of personality and identity.

Furthermore, consistency may not always be appropriate or necessary in certain contexts or for certain user groups. For example, a digital experience aimed at fashion or luxury markets with infrequent purchasing behaviour may benefit from more varied and unique designs, whereas a product aimed at more casual users or perfunctory behaviours may benefit from greater consistency to make it easier to use.

To an extent, consistency is human nature, and in many cases simply born out of a lack of time, funds and effort to do proper human centred design. As Jared Spool points out: “Why do we gravitate to consistency? Because it’s easier to think about. You don’t actually have to know anything about your users to talk about making things consistent. You only have to know about your design, which most designers are quite familiar with.”

Confidence in Inconsistency

While consistency is an important design principle, it is equally essential to know when to break free from it. Designers need to have confidence in inconsistency and recognise that sometimes, breaking from the norm can lead to better design solutions.

I particularly like the definition that consistency is “using the same solution for the same problem.” principally because it provides a strong hint about when you should not be consistent. If there’s already a good solution for a design problem, you should follow the existing pattern and be consistent. However, when you’re facing a new problem, you may well need a new solution, and you shouldn’t feel constrained to be consistent with preexisting patterns that don’t apply.

Designers need to be aware of the constraints of their design problem and recognise when consistency may not be the best approach. As in so much of human centred design, designers need to strike a balance between consistency and innovation, testing and iterating on their designs to ensure they are meeting user needs and expectations.

Analogy corner

An analogy from the world of music can help illustrate the point. While consistency is crucial in musical genres like classical music, where adherence to strict rules and conventions is essential, other genres like jazz rely heavily on improvisation and innovation. Jazz musicians break free from the constraints of a set melody and chord progression, creating new and unique music each time they play. Or perhaps we might look once again to architecture. Within a masterplan and operating within standards and building codes, too much slavish attention to the norms might lead to a monotonous townscape or cookie-cutter housing development. Architects rightly introduce variation based on the needs of the user, the vernacular but can still maintain cohesion in the design language.

To conclude, while consistency is an important principle in design, designers need to have confidence in inconsistency and recognise when breaking consistency can lead to better design solutions. Blindly following consistency can stifle creativity and limit innovation, leading to a lack of variety and visual interest in digital experiences.

From the smörgåsbord

  • Consistency can harm the user experience if used mindlessly or lazily.
  • Coherency is a more useful guide than consistency, where the latter leads to repetition and copy-paste solutions and the former is about seeking harmony.
  • Aim to balance consistency and flexibility based on a more astute understanding of your users’ mental models, visit patterns and sophistication.
  • Are you being consistent because it’s easier for you (e.g. using a burger menu in mobile and desktop) rather than thinking about the context?
  • What do you care about most, a ‘perfect’ design system or a flexibility, adaptable human-centred website? Mark Parnell is instructive here: “For designers there is often a trap we fall into as we start to create components in tools like Figma. We think our goal is to nurture a “perfect” design system. A system where every piece of typography is the same, where every component has the same states with the same colors and the same terminology.”

    Referenced above, but well worth also reading “When design consistency is harmful” and “Can consistency harm your product?“

The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author, John Gibbard, in a personal capacity and do not necessarily represent those of the author’s employer or any other associated individuals or organisations. The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,
Mar 16 2023
work

The Local Maximum Problem: Why CRO Alone Won’t Take Your UX to the Next Level

When it comes to improving user experience, Conversion Rate Optimisation (CRO) is often viewed as a go-to solution for many businesses. However, it may not be as effective as we think. In fact, it may even be a poor driver of improved user experience.

To understand this, let’s take an analogy from a department store. Imagine a store manager who is solely focused on increasing sales. They achieve this by placing all their best-selling products in the front of the store. While this may indeed increase sales for a short term, it’s not necessarily the best way to improve the long-term overall experience for the customer. A better approach would be to focus on creating an efficient, persuasive customer journey, with products and services promoted and displayed in a manner that speaks to specific needs of each individual customer.

Similarly, CRO often focuses, by definition on increasing conversions and revenue in isolation, rather than on improving the hollistic user experience. It’s business-centred design. It undeniably frequently results in the commercial dopamine hit of a higher conversion rate, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that the user has had a better experience, a consequence which perhaps imperceptibly begins to erode the brand and the opportunity.

Furthermore, by relying too heavily on iterative solutions, without deep insight into well-researched human-centred design, businesses find themselves trapped in the Local Maximum Problem. This is where incremental improvements reach a peak and fail to achieve further progress towards a better outcome. In the context of CRO, this means that businesses may become stuck in a cycle of making small tweaks to their website, trying in effect to iterate their way out of a problem, rather than addressing the deeper, underlying issues that may be impacting user experience.

Consider also perhaps CRO’s greatest flaw. The high likelihood that the data it’s based on lacks integrity and that it’s a poor predictor of future behaviour (a topic I have visited before). The former is due to inconsistent implementations of tracking and the fallibility of those implementing it. As for the latter, even when the data is accurate, it’s unlikely ever to be an effective predictor of human behaviour. Psychologists insist that to be predictable, a given behaviour has to occur rather often, but in digital web journeys, the behaviour may be infrequent and intermittent. The prediction is most accurate if based on a short time frame, but in digital web experiences, the time frames vary wildly and unpredictably. The predicted situation must be a close match for the past situation that the observation was made from, yet in digital, these situations vary significantly across devices and contexts. The behaviour must not have been influenced by negative or corrective feedback, which of course can never be identified or eliminated through web metrics. Finally, the person must be generally consistent with their behaviours, which is impossible outside of empirical settings.

Returning to the methodological problem, privacy regulations like GDPR also compromise at least some of the data that CRO is based on. The technical complexities of tracking across multiple devices and with more user autonomy in terms of privacy awareness make it increasingly difficult to gather accurate data and to confidently assert that it is so.

So where does CRO, when applied lead us? Let’s take a look at Booking.com, a site that uses CRO extensively. Critics have pointed out that the site’s aggressive marketing tactics can lead to a cluttered and confusing user experience. The site bombards users with pop-ups and urgency messages, which may increase conversions but do little to improve the overall user experience. Even anecdotally most of us will have expressed disdain for it’s ‘thirsty’ tactics and a sense of grubbiness that there must be a better way to find a hotel in Chicago in September. Booking.com’s focus on conversions means that it prioritises short-term gains over long-term customer satisfaction. While this may lead to a higher conversion rate, it can also lead to frustrated and disappointed customers who feel like they’ve been coerced with deceptive patterns or simply made to consider way too much along the journey, resulting in resentment and decision fatigue.

In conclusion, while CRO may seem like a quick-fix solution for improving user experience, it may not be as effective as we think. Can we ever really look away from an approach that focuses on well-researched human-centred design, creating a better customer journey from end to end, one that addresses the underlying issues that may be impacting user experience?

Rather than simply increasing conversions, businesses should aim to create a positive and memorable user experience that leads to long-term customer satisfaction and loyalty, something the most successful and loyal bricks-and-mortar brands have known for some time.


The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author, John Gibbard, in a personal capacity and do not necessarily represent those of the author’s employer or any other associated individuals or organisations. The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,
← Older posts
Newer posts →