That last line is important. Exposing content is generally an editorial decision. That is changing, however, as news sites begin to seek ways of displaying what people are most viewing or emailing. We are rapidly moving towards balanced exposure of amateur and professional interests. One way of distinguishing between professional and amateur has been found by the NBC affiliate in Washington D.C.

The NBC Washington station has done an excellent job of using social commentary to surface articles to its home page that may or may not be the same choices as the editorial staff. Like other media outlets, they are interested in what people are reading most. But they go beyond that simple metrix to mine and surface how their readers are feeling about a news piece.

Its ingenious. Next to every article, you can rate how you feel about the subject matter. Your rating is tallied and the percentage for each feeling category is displayed right next to the article. You read the pulse of the community in real-time. No need to call your neighbor to poll them on how they feel. You already know how your community is reacting.

Also, these feeling ratings are a fantastic marketing tool to generate interest in the article. It’s a crazy, smart feature that I will definitely copy for a future project. I love it!

1. Here’s the home page. Notice the first sentence under the site’s identity. They used a script font to distinguish it from the rest of the content throughout the site. Script suggests hand written = people powered… nice design decision.

Note the copy below the header… “Locals are laughing…” It’s a hot link to the news article.

2. At the news article, you now see all prior readers’ feelings. Note that you can do this without logging in… no membership required, just anonymous polling.

3. The polling tool shows the current sentiment before you indicate yours. It encourages participation. Once you make your choice, immediate feedback is provided and you “feel” your voice has been recorded.

My selection is registered without a page refresh. It shows what I voted for, and encourages me to share it. Brilliant.

Imagine this same concept being used for policy oriented issues that are digitally distributed in the form of news articles, PR releases, videos, white papers, etc. Immediate feedback in an easy to use format. Get ready for the new democracy!!

If our tools allow us to produce project artifacts faster, can our solutions remain a product of deep consideration?

Over the last year, I’ve been following Adobe’s release of a very particular piece of software that has got me excited. It’s called Catalyst and it will create a new set of challenges for the field of user experience. Let me first explain what it does…

Adobe Catalyst, currently in beta form, allows for a visual designer or a UX architect to import either a Photoshop (.psd) or Illustrator (.ai) document and create interactivity elements. Catalyst use the assets and layers brought in with the original document. This is a tremendous leap forward in two important areas- the selling of ideas and the production of approved designs. Let me focus on the former.

In the UX discipline, a core deliverable is the wire-frame or page schematic that documents a number of important components. It communicates everything from the site / page navigation and content hierarchy, to the proposed interactivity (ie, what happens when I click here). These documents have always been delivered in a static form. You print them out and present them to the client. They are not intended to represent visual design. They are intended to document how each page will function and its content development needs.

The benefit, and possible danger, of Catalyst is that we can now present clients with wire-frames that are interactive. Formerly, if you want to communicate “states” of a drop-down menu, for instance, you had to show each static step as a different drawing. With Catalyst, you can now interact with the element and see the changing states. Wow! That’s a huge leap forward in comprehension and can help everyone on the team better understand what you proposing to build.

If pictures are worth a thousand words and video is worth, umm, a thousand pictures, then scrolling / clickable wireframes are worth…? The more interaction is demonstrated, the fewer leaps the imagination must make.

The danger? Well, honestly, I believe there is something good about NOT demonstrating more detail in the early stages. The closer we approximate the final product, the greater likelihood clients will find that execution sufficient. Taking a project through a full process of discovery, strategy, architect, design and engineering (the common approach) allows for ideas to mature. It allows for a team to live with a client’s business and the proposed solution, rather than quickly producing and launching.

Please note that there is sometimes value in doing fast iterations and testing them in the market. That is a great strategy for a start-up who is exploring which ideas gain traction. I don’t debate that strategic wisdom. I only pose the question- if our tools allow us to produce project artifacts faster, we best be thinking how our solutions remain deeply effective.

Until I write about that subject, however, let me guide you back towards Adobe Catalyst. Learn more about the product and download a demo of Catalyst at Adobe.

——————-

Jared Spool. You know him, you love him, and you can see him when he keynotes MX: Managing Experience on March 7th.

He’s graciously allowed us to repost this article so we can give you an idea of what his MX talk is based on.

The 3 Qs for Great Experience Design
By Jared M. Spool
(Originally published: Oct 06, 2008 here)

For more than seven years, we’ve studied how the great user experience teams succeed. We’ve looked at a variety of variables to isolate what it takes. We’ve looked at management structure, employed methodologies, best practices, and hiring qualifications. We’ve looked at team communication techniques, requirement gathering techniques, the target industry, and the geographic location. All said, we’ve inspected about 250 different variables for dozens of organizations across a wide variety of industries, educational institutions, and government.

As with most things, most variables don’t play a role. However, we found three key variables as being critically important: vision, feedback, and culture. Using these three variables, we’ve created corresponding questions to help us quickly rate a team’s experience design prowess. Teams that answer these questions well are far more likely to create great experiences than the rest of the pack.

Factor #1: Understanding the purpose of vision
Here’s the first question we ask: “Does everyone on your team know what the experience will be like interacting with your offerings five years from now?”

When the answer is affirmative, any team member can describe what the user’s experience will be like in five years. They’ll tell us a story, like this real one from a century-old insurance company:

“An insured home and car owner, having just had a tree fall on their garage, will log into the site, explain the damage, upload pictures, and get initial claim approval to start temporary repairs and get a rental car—all within a few minutes. Within the next 24 hours, inspection appointments and a detailed damage assessment are scheduled and reviewed, and the repairs are underway within 48 hours. All the payments are handled electronically from the insurance company, with a single NET-60 bill sent to the policy holder for the deductibles.”

This story is an experience vision. It outlines how the person, in this case someone who insures both their home and car with the company, can make a joint claim and quickly start the recovery process. Notice that the story doesn’t describe the specifics of the design or the system — that’s not important. What’s important is understanding the experience of the policy holder.

While this particular story may not sound that interesting or difficult to someone outside, for this organization it’s a radical departure from today’s experience. Their business units currently don’t talk to each other and pretend that customers don’t exist beyond their own individual products. So, this integrated vision shows a radical departure and eliminates much of the frustration caused by today’s organizational reality. For this organization, five years is aggressive for the substantial, under-the-covers changes that this vision will require.

We like looking five-years ahead because it gets beyond the immediate reactive requirements and starts considering what a great experience could be. If we only looked one year ahead, we’d be stuck with the current realities. If we look too far out, we get into the realm of science fiction.

Because everyone on the team has the same vision, they are all on the same page for what it takes to succeed. Think of it as a stake in the sand on the horizon. Everyone can see the stake and knows when they are taking baby steps towards it and when they are moving away. The stake can move at any time (and, for some organizations, does frequently), but that’s ok, since everyone can see the change and start moving in the new direction.

Struggling teams can’t answer this question affirmatively. They either have never considered beyond the problems of the day or everyone has a different vision. Working to have a solid vision that everyone shares will go a long way to help these teams.

Factor #2: Having a solid feedback mechanism
While the first question deals with where the team is going, the second question deals with where the design has been: “In the last six weeks, have your team members spent at least two hours watching people experience your product or service?”

We’re looking for teams that can answer affirmatively no matter when we ask. That means they are regularly watching the users and learning from them.

These observation sessions can happen in a variety of ways (and in the best organizations, the variety is wide). They can be usability tests or field studies. In each case, each team member has spent a minimum of two hours observing the current experience.

Note that we’re not talking about surveys or satisfaction measures. Those instruments are often flawed and only give a very small piece of the picture. In the best case, they can tell us whether users are frustrated or delighted, but they can’t tell us why. The team needs to observe the experience, in a detailed manner, to really get the information required to make the critical decisions.

Six weeks is an important period. In our research, the average team member works on an experience design project for twenty-four months. This means they’ll encounter a minimum of 16 separate experiences during their tenure, working out to be an average of 48 observations for a four-member team during that period. All of that detailed information can’t help but create better informed decisions in the design process.

Longer than six weeks and the exposure to the users starts to wear off. It’s far less likely that a team member will say, “What about when we saw Fred have problems with accessing multiple policies?” when Fred’s experience happened months before.

Many struggling teams have never had a single member observe the experience of using their design, even though, in some cases, millions of users interact with the design every day. In other cases, they only get data from indirect sources or they’ve had limited exposure during their tenure. When this happens, each member of the team can only talk to their own experience of using the design, which is very likely to be at odds with how real users experience it.

Factor #3: Living a culture that relishes “failure”
The first two questions are straight-forward and make sense, from a strategic perspective. You have to know where you’re going and you have to know what you’ve already built. The last question, on the other hand, can seem counter-intuitive: “In the last six weeks, has your senior management held a celebration of a recently introduced design problem?”

In most organizations, problems are not cause for celebration. However, in a culture that pushes for frequent small changes, problems become opportunities for improvement. Teams that answer affirmatively have established a culture that not only accepts failure, but relishes it as a way to learn about the users and their needs.

At a major software corporation, the CEO regularly holds parties to give out a valued award, shaped as a full-size life preserver, to individuals who have created “learning opportunities” by introducing a problem into the design. Of course, the CEO acknowledges that the problem wasn’t introduced intentionally. But, because it made it into the design, the organization learned important lessons they can use going forward. Receiving the life preserver award from the CEO has become a high honor within the company.

For example, a technology company recently experienced a massive server outage as, upon the release of a highly-desired new feature, millions of users tried to upgrade simultaneously. While the server outage was a major embarrassment (reflected in the press and on Wall Street), it was because of a successful marketing and design campaign for highly-desired functionality. Despite the momentary crisis, the organization simultaneously learned how to create desirable enhancements while also learning the impact that it has on their infrastructure — both valuable lessons they’ll refer to for years to come.

The best organizations hold these celebrations frequently, because they are constantly learning from their mistakes. By making the learning process explicit, through their acknowledgement and reward, the culture starts to look for it. As the old saying goes, “That which is measured gets done and that which is rewarded gets done well.”

Struggling organizations do not hold celebrations of what they perceive to be design problems. Instead, they’ll punish the “culprits” and put new product-preventing policies in place to stop it from re-occurring. Soon, the original stimuli for these policies are forgotten and the organization is doomed to repeat the mistakes.

Driving Towards Improvement
The neat thing about these three questions is their applicability to constant improvement. Teams can self assess and look for opportunities to answer the questions better.

A good team may have a start to the vision, but hasn’t communicated it to everyone who has influence over the design. The team may occasionally get feedback on their current experience, but hasn’t seen anyone recently. And there’s always opportunities to highlight the latest things they’ve learned, even if it was a difficult learning process.

While further research could show there are other factors that influence a team’s success, it’s clear to us that these three factors are critically important. Fortunately, improving them has little downside, making them a serious candidate for any amount of investment the organization can afford.

Problem: moving groups towards successful completion of project milestones is often hindered because the solutions are developed independent of the team.

Solution: stand up, grab a dry board marker and draw. Documentation started. Team approval secured.

Digital agencies and design shops produce a lot of smart documents for their clients. They spend time in meetings discussing the strategy and high-level execution requirements. Once the tasks are assigned, we retreat to our separate corners; develop some documentation from the POV of our specialty; and  return to the conference room looking to get confirmation that our interpretation was correct.

If not correct?… sorry… keep evolving or even start back at square one. The idea is to keep refining as we get group buy-in, often wasting everyone’s time with small incremental movement towards a solution.

A faster path is to use the first or second meeting to begin concrete ideation using white board markers to diagram the strategy and architecture. When you’ve got people in a room, use them! Harness the collective knowledge to develop the screens right there! Take a stab, defend a position… but stay flexible and fluid in order to generate ideas and layouts from the whole team.

White board sketches provide clarity and concensus.

In some recent projects, we relied on our collective wisdom to short circuit the normal process. It’s as if we jumped from square two to square eight without a penalty. At first, the idea of throwing about your ideas without time to consider the implications or confirm your instincts is scary. We all want to be right- or at least smart -when we put ourselves in front of the team.

Ideation isn't meant to be pretty, but expressive as we move towards specificity.

If the goal is to find the best ideas, then starting with a sketch gets all them on the board and, if orchestrated properly, allows for the entire team to voice their opinion up front, not later in the process.

Sketch for a flash video editor.

These shots show diagrams of ideation sessions that went directly to wireframes. The process looked something like- (a) generalize; (b) specify with drawings; (c) photograph; (d) make it look pretty. When the first round of wireframes were presented, it confirmed what everyone had already agreed to. The process was sped up ten-fold without loss of knowledge or insufficient time to marinate.

Home Page Sketch

Landing Page Sketch

Resulting Wireframe

A job well done = fast, effective and delivered with the collective genius baked in…

Problem: When presenting the discoveries made about a client’s business, we have historically presented documentation that is largely ineffective because it subscribes to the idea that breadth creates value.

Solution: Present large info-graphic boards that communicate the structure of a pertinent narrative. Introducing “Site-Scapes!”

While working with The Groop on a project for the country’s largest employer and one of the top public universities, we took the bulk of our discoveries from three sources and made them come to life with a “Site-Scape”. Our definition of a Site-Scape is a mash-up of user definitions, brand attributes and the service’s value proposition (i.e., a clear statement of the tangible results a customer gets from using the product or service). The original idea for these “design-scapes”, as they were known, began with Henry Min, formerly of The Groop, and Jose Caballer, Chief Creative Whip at The Groop. We’ve now evolved them to add more structure around the Discovery Phase deliverables.

The challenge with any documentation that presents insights is to surface those insights in context. This is where they generate the greatest understanding and ultimately validate why the client hired us. When presented out of context, they fall flat and fail to generate the desired “eureka” moment…

That said, the goal of this Site-Scape was to visually communicate three things:

1. An affirmation that we understand the user (s) and their needs.
2. Provide references to our proposed features- by Phase -and their organizing principles.
3. A suggested visual language we might develop for the design.

Reading from left to right, we first identified our three primary users paired with their needs. We reminded the viewer (client) of the interviews conducted with the program trainers and constituents by using quotes placed to underscore a particular program need. Instead of developing wireframes we expressed their essence: possible features that support the value proposition and the suggested actions each might demand of the user.

The Site-Scape led the viewers eye along a path of visual forms- the same path a user takes as they work through the site and that reflects the real-life experiences the service is designed to address. All of this impresses upon the client our understanding of who this site is intended to serve. Simply put- we get the needs of the end-user.

Lastly, we did provide supporting documentation. In this context it becomes less critical to the story of our vision summarized by the Site-Scape. Ultimately, our goal, is to make the supporting material irrelevant. As Site-Scapes become more symbolic and referential they become more powerful. I don’t foresee these visualizations holding the same symbolism of the paintings of Leonardo Di Vinci or Albrecht Dürer, but it’s something to shoot for!

In one four-hour meeting we accomplished what would have taken much longer in a “traditional” deliverable presentation. I’m factoring in the reality that presentations normally require (1) orientation to the materials; (2) explanation of the materials; and finally, (3) the client’s time spent digesting all of it on their own time.

On a higher level, the goal of any presentation is to create a story the listener engages with no matter their learning style: visual, kinesthetic, or auditory. Our goal is to allow clients to move towards faster, more immediate comprehension of our solution. After all, we are betting that this is exactly what we will deliver as a final user experience.

If you’ve had experience presenting “alternative” documentation to clients, I welcome your comments. I hope to hear from you.

Our Italian client is launching a new brand around this tasty product and they appear to be making some smart moves- including hiring The Groop! We are taking on many of their identity and branding efforts, which I will discuss in future posts. However, what is most interesting as I dive deep into the culture of Balsamic, is how little I knew about this unique product. Let me share some info with you.

The following is a brief primary from Gourmet Retailer:

Article Title: Traditional Balsamic Vinegar

Shrouded in mystery and steeped in tradition that extends back centuries, balsamic vinegar remains one of the most popular and yet misunderstood items in the specialty food world. Balsamic is unique among vinegars in that the juice from the grapes never becomes wine, but rather goes from a cooked grape “must” through a singular process that transforms it into a rich, viscous elixir considered to be one of the greatest condiments in the world. Floor personnel, faced with varying levels of quality, age, and price, should be able to separate fact from fiction, and dispel the myths and misconceptions about the balsamic vinegar category. This is especially important in light of the preciousness of the most expensive Aceto that would preclude regular tastings. Following is a primer on this sublime ingredient that in a very short time has become one of America’s favorite vinegars.

Hint: a gift idea for Charles Erdman

What is balsamic vinegar of Modena?

Two completely different products lie within the category of balsamic vinegar of Modena — traditional and commercial — and each is subject to completely different production methods, trade associations, and legal requirements in Italy.

Traditional balsamic vinegar of Modena is a very rare product that is always expensive. It is produced from the cooked and filtered “must” (the juice of crushed grapes) derived primarily from late-harvest Trebbiano grapes. The “must” is aged in different types of wooden casks for a minimum of 12 years in what is one of the world’s most unique and important culinary traditions. The content of the final cask is brought to the consortium in Modena, which is the governing body that certifies traditional balsamic vinegar of Modena.

If the product passes inspection, the producer is authorized to have the product bottled by the consortium in its patented 3.5-ounce bottle. Aging claims are forbidden on labels, and the difference between 12 and 25 years is indicated by a seal on each label (white or gold). The vast majority of balsamic vinegar of Modena consumed in the U.S. is commercial. Commercial vinegar is the result of the fermentation of two ingredients, cooked or concentrated “must” made from grapes of the local region and red wine vinegar. No legal aging requirements exist for the production of commercial vinegar. Usually, but not always, it is aged for a short time. Again, aging claims on the label are not allowed.

Does a balsamic vinegar that claims to be aged mean that I am getting better quality?

Traditional balsamic vinegar of Modena is verifiably aged, and its quality is strictly enforced and regulated by the consortium. However, very few consumers are willing to pay $100 or more for a 3.5-ounce bottle.

The quality of commercial balsamic vinegar is determined mainly by the quality and quantity of “must” in the product, which can be measured by lab tests. There is no aging requirement by law in Italy for commercial vinegar, and the majority of it is not aged at all. The differences in commercial prices are generally due to differences in the quantities and qualities of “must.” Aging also plays an important role, as does the type of wood, size of the barrels, etc. There are some extraordinary commercial products that are made in the traditional manner and thus, are very expensive as well.

How do I know which type of balsamic vinegar to use?

Fortunately for American consumers, an Association of Italian Balsamic Tasters (A.I.B., or Assaggiatori Italiani Balsamico) has been formed in Italy to establish a labeling system to help sort out the various levels of quality and price, and how best to use them. Some producers have divided the product into four categories that indicate the different characteristics, as well as the recommended usage for each level. The labels have varying numbers of vine leaves under a chef’s hat.

One leaf indicates a moderate-density vinegar, which is best used for salad dressing. Two leaves signify a greater density and should be used for salads, marinades, and BBQs. Vinegar with three leaves on its label is characterized by sweetness, with scents of spices and wood. This level is excellent served simply with cheese, strawberries, or other fresh fruits. Four leaves indicate exceptionally smooth and thick authentic balsamico tradizionale, and should be used for the highest culinary creations, such as transforming — with a mere drop — a perfect steak, serving as a last-minute addition to a sauce, or as the Italians do, sipping it as a digestivo.

End of Article

Once we receive final approval to make public, I’ll release screen shots of the wireframes and the design solution. We will be using a lot of video and weaving it in to the online experience. Until then, happy eating!

Problem: In North America, the Nokia brand image is confused.

Solution: Target the user who wants both business and fun in one device.

As I outlined in my last post on Nokia’s brand, I think the company needs to make some swift changes in their product and service offering, while unifying their communications from both an identity and branding perspective. There was good reason to think that their new flagship N97 smartphone combined with the Ovi application marketplace could be the “it” combination to tackle their eroding awareness in the U.S. market.

Unfortunately, early reviews are not positive as seen in this TechCrunch post. Apparently, the overall user experience lacks consistency and suffers from poor industrial design (eg., screen tilt is fixed) and materials choices (eg., the primary screen hinge). If this assessment is true and consumer’s begin to feel the same way as the reviewers, Nokia will not generate needed buzz… and that is exactly what they need right now based on the results of personal inquiries.

In my survey, I made certain to target a wide range of age groups that tended to be broken down in to three audiences- senior, mid-age and twenty-something. The following are the direct quotes from my US and European friends.

Each was asked the same question: “what are the first words that come to mind when you think of “Nokia?”

United States

Nokia means cell phones. That’s all I know. (age 72)

The best thing from Finland. The only thing in Finland. Wonderfully cheap Nokia phones that we use in Mexico (true). (age 70)

Are they still in business? I haven’t used one of their products, or considered one of their products, for many years. As I remember them, they were cool, crisp, current, workable, effective tech tools and toys. (age 54)

Nokia…weird brand…techie, not hip, Asian, kind of generic electronic manufacturer, cheap products, not Multi media, no hook like blackberry and iPhone. (age 42)

Innovative… Product design… Dominant outside of the US… Ovi… Friendly… Tech savvy. (age 36)

Outdated phones… did not know they were still around. – Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry (age 34)

I don’t use their phones because I don’t know much about them. They seem to have a lot of “starter” phones on the market. I want the status of owning an iPhone. (age 22)

Europe

The one problem would be that it (N95) takes a week to figure all the stuff out and I am very good with gadgets. And some simple functions related to calling and emails still have me perplexed and I don’t have them working correctly. (age 39)

I have the Nokia N95 (older model) smart phone and love it. It’s like a mini computer. (age 32)

Nokia is the phone I look for when I start a new contract with a carrier. They are dependable and I need that in a phone – which is my life! (age 28)

In general, the above simply shows a lack of awareness in the North American market. In the EU, they have a stronger presence, but this may be country by country. When recently visiting Austria and talking with an 18-year old, he used a Sony-Ericsson and stated that all his friends do as well. He claimed that Sony-Ericsson has 60% of the market in Austria. Who knows if that’s true, but the perception is there and will be hard to change.

In the US market, I think Nokia has a real opportunity if they target the business-user first. Apple controls the conversation around ease-of-use and cool design for the consumer population. If you want to be perceived as hip, you own an iPhone. However, the business-user marketplace is still primarily defended by RIM and I think there is room for competition.

If Nokia can meld the slide-out keyboard and an enterprise software solution with a multimedia device (photos, movies, MMS, etc.) AND an open-source application store, they could really erode the Blackberry market share. This is why the N97 + Ovi combination could be the “it” solution.

It will only happen if Nokia values the total customer experience supply chain (described in the book “Do You Matter? How Great Design Will Make People Love Your Company“). This concept makes the interaction design of the total experience – ie,. every customer touch-point, be it physical or marketing – the overarching directive of all product development initiatives.

In the North American market, Nokia could maintain a healthy price point and revive their image as a solid technology solution if they understand that the business user wants one device for both business and personal use. This could be their sweet spot that once claimed, could change people’s opinions of the brand in both the States and Europe.

Problem: Nokia is struggling with a fractured product offering and image.

Solution: a renewed focus on the user’s needs and an immediate re-organization of all consumer-facing projects around this premise.

Irrelevant is a powerful word in a capitalist economy. Irrelevant happens when a company’s products or services don’t meet or exceed the baseline expectations. In the fast paced technology marketplace, if you don’t provide a comparable service you lose market share and become irrelevant in a very short time frame.

Nokia may still be the largest mobile phone manufacturer in the world, but that may not be enough to keep them relevant to the consumer dialogue happening around mobile applications, social networking and location based services. After reviewing their offering and taking an informal survey about their brand, I’ve generated some conclusions expressed in this post.

My observations are that (1) its all about the software; (2) Nokia must match their competitors before they can exceed them; (3) they need to leverage their newly emerging service platform; (4) they need to unify their communications to support one brand; and finally (5) I think they should consolidate their handset lines.

Here are my five thoughts in greater detail:

1. The Software Now Drives the Hardware

Hardware and software are no longer distinct in the eyes of the consumer. They must be as one. The touch screens place the emphasis on the software interaction. This new paradigm provides greater flexibility as the user interface (UI) can evolve over time and change according to an application’s needs. If the software must conform the hardware’s inputs, it is constrained. The hardware must only serve as a container for the software experience.

The fact that the UI drives the car is why Nokia may soon be irrelevant if their new flagship model, the N97, doesn’t create a stir with a satisfying TOTAL user experience. By total I mean the entire physical and screen experience. This includes: how the device sits in your hand; how the buttons feel when pushed; what feedback is provided upon input; how the UI behaves; how intuitive each transaction feels; and even how the whole phone syncs. Simply put, their OS needs to match the iPhone’s OS. That is the gold standard.

2. Match Standards

Nokia is still viewed as a hardware company by most of the world. They make a huge range of phones that serve a variety of audiences. If they are to succeed, their services solution (Ovi) needs to be fully integrated with their media handsets. If they can develop truly smart phones that has a comparable OS to their competitors linked to an expanding application marketplace, then they can match their competitors.

The key will be if they can do something unique with the core software applications (mail, calendar, contacts, media files, etc.). One application that is part of the Ovi offering is mapping. After a thorough review, my opinion can be summed up in two words, “not yet.” They haven’t even incorporated the basic features that we have been taught to expect by Google or Yahoo Maps. Once they can provide the baseline, then they can make incremental improvements.

The CEO has publicly declared that they are a “solutions company”. He has also stated that they are placing a greater emphasis on location based services. They will need to match the standard set by a number of others, like Google’s Latitude service, in order to fulfill on that promise. Once that is achieved, then they can start providing innovative solutions.

3. Be an Open API Service Provider

As with all social structures and software initiatives that are fluid, Nokia must harness the power of the community. Communities know what they want. They are quick to reward a product or service that successfully addresses a need.

To stay innovative, Nokia should focus on providing developers with their OS and Ovi Mapping API. If Nokia provides a solid OS and core applications platform, then fully opens (not partially) the APIs, the development community will go nuts. The mapping features can be expanded and touch all the core communiation and social activities. that model simplifies Nokia’s task immensely by placing the burden of innovation upon the community.

So follow the open-source movement. Focus on creating a platform that encourages experimentation, commercial reward and community input. Considering the market share of handsets that Nokia enjoys, they can easily get momentum in their favor.

4. Unify The Brand

Nokia currently has a number of products and services that utilize different style guides and messages. This provides their marketing and service vendors with a huge opportunity to unify the consumer’s perception of Nokia.

“Comes With Music”, the Ovi Store, the Nokia Store, local and global websites, and .Mobi all appear different and disconnected in the online environment. There is little energy around their traditional marketing. It feels fragmented and unfocused. They need to consolidate their vendors and unify their internal fiefdoms. It’s a process of change management on a very large scale.

The rewards will be a consistent impression of the company and its services. Remember, a brand is not what YOU say it is. A brand is what THEY say it is. Capture your core audiences loyalty and their friends will follow.

5. Cull The Herd

Lastly, I think they need to bring down the variety of handsets they offer to fewer lines that target specific activities and budgets. Each line should service a particular need in a simple and elegant manner. Each phone should always, always sync with their software service, Ovi, so a continuous bond between handset and software services is established. The user must feel that they are taken care of by Ovi and Nokia. If a Nokia phone will be desirable if it allows for immediate ownership of cool apps, then people feel special. Consumer’s are all about how to be special within their tribe.

In a world of options, the consumer needs focus. Nokia needs to provide that focus and direct their audience to the right product. Right now, its too confusing.

In conclusion, if Nokia took just a few of these suggested steps, it would gain mind share again. From a recent survey I took of friends from the U.S. and European markets, I learned that Nokia does not control the conversation about their brand. It is a fractured perception- just like their offering. They are not perceived as relevant to the market forces that are driving the mobile industry.

To their credit, they may be putting in place the tools to reenter that space. They are probably wrapping all of their services into the Ovi Store and beginning to unify their brand. The launch of the N97 will hopefully make a splash. The mobile phone market is moving quickly and the consumer’s expectations of how their “media device” must behave has shifted in a massive way.

It’s time for Nokia to turn up the volume and be relevant to the consumer’s needs. It’s time for user-centered product development approach.

Now they are applying the idea of “SHIFT_” to the next generation of automobile purchasers- generation 2000 or the millennium generation. I was slow to realize that anyone born in the late eighties and early nineties is now at an age where their parents are buying them cars. I was slow, because… well… I’m getting older and didn’t realize that they were not only out of diapers, but have become official consumers…

The SHIFT_ tag may be a bit stale, but I could make the argument that the structure provides flexibility while reinforcing core brand qualities. The idea has been to distinguish Nissan as an innovator in the mind of the consumer. Nissan shifts the perception of an automobile- its uses, its design, its ability to inspire, its ability to aspire- away from merely transportation.

The website does this quite well particularly as it pertains to their newest model, the Nissan Cube.

As with everything, the “Millennials” are pushing marketing language to reflect their view of the world: transient, mobile, social, unhierarchical, abbreviated and global just scratch the surface. Chiat Day and Nissan’s interactive vendor (The Designory or are they back with Sapient?) acknowledges this in the website’s section dedicated to the vehicle. One of the first images even declares the car to be not an automobile, but a “mobile device.”

This model is funky, fun and unconventional. It would appear to compete with Toyota’s Scion series and Honda’s Element. The boxy styling is born from Japanese miniature designs that push small personal spaces in tight urban settings. The car has a small wheel base and place the occupants in a more upright position. I viewed a recent exhibition at the London Science Museum on this very subject.

This generation is unique in that it demands to participate with the media being designed for them. They want the opportunity to comment, share and come to their own communal opinions. They want to personalize. They want to tweak mass market products to feel unique. They are a generation who -in a time of endless options- want their choices to proclaim they are distinct from “others.”

Notice the marketing language of the site- its all about personalization. It speaks to two audiences- the child and the parent. The language says- Be different (yet part of a tribe). Be quirky (yet practical). Be unconventional (in your purchases, not in your judgment). It reassures the young adult that they are hip, cool, distinct and… special. And for the parents who are buying the car- be safe (a value statement) and affordable…

This marketing language represents a SHIFT in marketing insight. No longer should communications be “top down” emerging from the company and broadcast to the consumer. It is now about an evolving model of consumer-to-consumer communications with the company trying to participate. It is the language of social networking, blogs and instantaneous access.

However, this is not as new a conversation as it may seem. Quite the contrary, it is the old and relevant dialogue of branding where the consumer tells YOU what the brand is, not the company telling the consumer.

The take-away of this emerging dialogue is that we are at the cusp of a more “interactive” marketing era. The demands of a generation who want to be special in a world of options and commodities are just being felt as their purchasing power grows. Marketers must adapt to the new communication mediums and methods of breaking in to the conversation.

The first step is to create the dialogue and chatter. Next, try and influence it by appropriating the forums for communication. If I were Nissan’s marketing group, I would now create a Cube Owner affinity site which would consist of community stories around vehicle modifications, trips and experiences. Help the car owners own the site. Make it a hub for all things Cube. Generate third-party after market merchandise. In essence, create sustainable buzz and indespensibile membership. SHIFT how the Millennials view their transporation…

Mr. Mau was spot on with this statement and it is exactly the experience I had checking out a bike in Paris, France. The process was rife with usability gaps making me aware of the system’s design.

Problem: A difficult check-out process discourages use.

Solution: Create two entry paths into system for repeat and first time users.

On one early Parisian morning before my family had awaken, I left our hotel and approached a bike station. The kiosk was inviting and after first reviewing the display screen and then the input device, I started punching buttons. I selected my language (British) and then started the process of checking out a bicycle.

The verification and selection process essential is broken down into two phases which was never communicated to me. I’ll start with the first.

Phase One:

1. Activate screen
2. Indicate length of rental pass: one day or one week
3. Chose payment method
4. Swipe card
5. Enter card PIN
6. Card confirmation
7. Receive receipt of day pass purchase and pass number.
8. End session.

Now I should have been on top of this, but during the first phase, I swiped my card and made my first mistake. I was focused on the main screen to provide feedback on my card status. What I missed was that the second screen – located at waist height – was waiting for me to enter my PIN number. Since I didn’t see this prompt, the credit card verification process failed and my card was declined.

I had to re-initiate the process with another card thinking my funds had run dry. I finally realized my error and looked down. I felt a bit foolish, but completed the task. The kiosk printed out a receipt and thanked me for the business. Wait, how do I get the bike? Was I going to be charged for a bike that I didn’t have? I was NOT feeling secure in this transaction (a key usability principle of all digital task flows).

I started the process again, unknowingly starting phase two.

Phase Two:

1. Activate screen.
2. Enter in the day pass number.
3. Receive confirmation that the account is active.
4. Indicate that you do not need help or want to check the status of your account. Instead, select the equivalent of “rent a bike”.
5. Enter the bike number you wish to rent.
6. Bike position is now primed for you to remove the bike (maybe it stays that way for ten minutes?).
7. The screen indicates that the process is now complete and “signs off” returning to the home screen.
8. Walk to bike position, press button and remove bike from the station.

At the point where I was prompted to chose a bike number, I left the kiosk to go inspect the bikes. I wanted one that was clean and had inflated tires. Of course, during this time someone could have come in and started their own checkout. When I returned to the kiosk with my memorized bike number, the screen had timed out…

Obviously the system should have prompted the user to chose a suitable bike before initiating the checkout process. OK, let’s start this again…

After going through the necessary steps again and getting to the seventh step, I notice that the prompt is NOT asking me to choose from all the bikes available, but from two of the approximately twenty bikes available at this location.

I walk out to inspect which of the two is in the best condition and upon my return find the screen has timed out again. This was now officially frustrating…!

This was a longer process than I had anticipated. I was being required to learn the system through trial and error. If this was a website, I would have moved on to another task by now. My time for a ride around the city in the early morning light was being eaten up simply trying to figure out how to checkout a bike- the purpose of the program.

The point of this post is to show how interfaces in the real world are similar to online or mobile ones. If it’s poorly executed, we are aware of the flaws and our perception of the whole business proposition is negatively affected. Each application must be designed with the end-user in mind. Usability design practices must be observed to develop tasks flows that are intuitive and consistent.

My solution for this problem would be to have two entry methods in to the system. The first is for newbies who are being acquainted with the system and require greater guidance. The second is for repeat users who are on the fast track. If this simple solution were instituted, it might encourage a larger population to use the bikes. I know I’m not the first tourist to be frustrated by this process.

A communal bike system is an excellent resource and should be a model for all urban areas. However, this execution failed to live up to the promise. It felt like the processing requirements of each technical system (identify verification, payment transaction, time/place stamping, etc.) were poorly integrated.

Ultimately, I had a very enjoyable bike ride. I experienced Paris at a human pace while getting exercise and using no petroleum. I will use the system again, but next time, I’ll know how to work with its eccentricities to get to my ride faster. Fortunately for government, there doesn’t exist a competing rental program.