Just capturing some thoughts for later pondering.
Common question is whether thought exists outside of language -- I am certain that it does, as I myself don't think in words, instead I must "name" my thoughts and convert them into the words I use to express them, as I'm doing right now. But is that how everyone thinks? I have no way of knowing.
In visual arts, I clearly recall making the transition from seeing and naming to just seeing, without naming. I can't do that with written words - if I see a word, in English anyway, I have to read it - I can't see the letters without hearing the word. Can some people do that?
It would be an interesting dissertation topic to investigate this further.
Another question - music. Is music symbolic? It doesn't seem to be, I don't find myself naming when I listen. Although as I advance in my study of the guitar, my ability to name does increase -- now I can name intervals, keys, etc.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Cognitive Dissonance & Monty Hall
There have been some interesting articles in the Times over the last couple days that, on reflection, might have some relevance to what we do.
First, a classic study (from 1956) about cognitive dissonance (and consumer choice) has been overturned. In the study, monkeys were allowed to choose a red or blue M&M. Say it chooses red. Next, it’s given the chance to choose between blue and green – will it choose randomly? No, study after study shows the monkey is more likely to choose green. Why? The classic explanation is that it’s rationalized its previous rejection of blue by telling itself it doesn’t really like blue in the first place (it’s retroactively justifying its previous choice to avoid cognitive dissonance).
Implication – that if we arrange for consumers to make one random choice, that this will impact their future choices, that is, if we want our customers to pick that green M&M we can make it more likely by first offering them the choice of the red or blue, and then offering them the green along with whichever one they rejected before.
Not so fast, though – turns out the whole experiment is based on a statistical flaw, called the Monty Hall problem, from Let’s Make a Deal. Try this problem on for size:
You’re on Let’s Make a Deal. Monty Hall shows you three doors, and tells you there’s a car behind one door, and goats behind the other two. Pick the door with the car and you win. Say you choose door #1. Monty then opens one of the other two doors to reveal a goat, and asks you if you want to switch. Should you? (note: in real life Monty can manipulate the result, for the sake of this problem assume that he must always open exactly one door that’s hiding a goat)
This is a HUGELY contentious issue, when the columnist and self-described genius Marilyn Vos Savant published the correct answer in Parade magazine in 1991 she got a torrent of letters from professors, mathematicians, etc., telling her she was nuts, but she was right. John Tierney of the Times actually met with Monty Hall himself and proved it.
The answer is that you should switch.
Why? Wouldn’t the odds be 1 chance in 2 that either door is right? Nope. Think of it like this: imagine you chose Door #1, and Monty offered you BOTH doors #2 & #3. You’d take it, right? The odds are 2 in 3 that one of those two doors is the winner. Well, that’s exactly what’s happening – Monty’s offering you BOTH door #2 and door #3 (odds are 2 in 3 that one is the winner) and then simply revealing that one of the two is a goat, which we already knew (one of the 2 has to be a goat, there’s only 1 car). So the odds that door #2 hides the car is still 2 chances in 3, and the odds it’s behind #1 is still 1 chance in 3. Switch! Don’t believe me? The Times has as simulation where you can play for yourself.
Implications for us? Humans have a really hard time with probability. The way we arrange the available choices can strongly influence which selection people make. If we’re relying on them understanding the odds, then we need to be careful, and of course if we’re Monty Hall, then we’re controlling the game by taking advantage of difficult it is for people to process this sort of problem.
Further reading: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/science/08tier.html
ps – what’s that got to do with the monkeys? Tierney explains it on the above page, but basically the researchers were making the Monty Hall mistake and therefore misinterpreting their findings
First, a classic study (from 1956) about cognitive dissonance (and consumer choice) has been overturned. In the study, monkeys were allowed to choose a red or blue M&M. Say it chooses red. Next, it’s given the chance to choose between blue and green – will it choose randomly? No, study after study shows the monkey is more likely to choose green. Why? The classic explanation is that it’s rationalized its previous rejection of blue by telling itself it doesn’t really like blue in the first place (it’s retroactively justifying its previous choice to avoid cognitive dissonance).
Implication – that if we arrange for consumers to make one random choice, that this will impact their future choices, that is, if we want our customers to pick that green M&M we can make it more likely by first offering them the choice of the red or blue, and then offering them the green along with whichever one they rejected before.
Not so fast, though – turns out the whole experiment is based on a statistical flaw, called the Monty Hall problem, from Let’s Make a Deal. Try this problem on for size:
You’re on Let’s Make a Deal. Monty Hall shows you three doors, and tells you there’s a car behind one door, and goats behind the other two. Pick the door with the car and you win. Say you choose door #1. Monty then opens one of the other two doors to reveal a goat, and asks you if you want to switch. Should you? (note: in real life Monty can manipulate the result, for the sake of this problem assume that he must always open exactly one door that’s hiding a goat)
This is a HUGELY contentious issue, when the columnist and self-described genius Marilyn Vos Savant published the correct answer in Parade magazine in 1991 she got a torrent of letters from professors, mathematicians, etc., telling her she was nuts, but she was right. John Tierney of the Times actually met with Monty Hall himself and proved it.
The answer is that you should switch.
Why? Wouldn’t the odds be 1 chance in 2 that either door is right? Nope. Think of it like this: imagine you chose Door #1, and Monty offered you BOTH doors #2 & #3. You’d take it, right? The odds are 2 in 3 that one of those two doors is the winner. Well, that’s exactly what’s happening – Monty’s offering you BOTH door #2 and door #3 (odds are 2 in 3 that one is the winner) and then simply revealing that one of the two is a goat, which we already knew (one of the 2 has to be a goat, there’s only 1 car). So the odds that door #2 hides the car is still 2 chances in 3, and the odds it’s behind #1 is still 1 chance in 3. Switch! Don’t believe me? The Times has as simulation where you can play for yourself.
Implications for us? Humans have a really hard time with probability. The way we arrange the available choices can strongly influence which selection people make. If we’re relying on them understanding the odds, then we need to be careful, and of course if we’re Monty Hall, then we’re controlling the game by taking advantage of difficult it is for people to process this sort of problem.
Further reading: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/science/08tier.html
ps – what’s that got to do with the monkeys? Tierney explains it on the above page, but basically the researchers were making the Monty Hall mistake and therefore misinterpreting their findings
Monday, April 7, 2008
Friday, April 4, 2008
A Question of Security
"Account number, please?" the customer service representative asks. I glance down at my latest statement and read if off.
"And with whom am I speaking?" she continues, I tell her my name. Then the big question: "For security purposes, what is the property address?"
What sort of "security" is that, exactly, I wonder, as I glance down at my statement on which my address is printed in friendly 12-point Arial. If I'd stolen this statement out of my neighbor's mailbox, wouldn't I be able to answer all of these questions? Obviously it's no security at all.
Now if she called me on a phone number from my file, then perhaps she could have reasonable confidence as to my identity. Assuming, of course, that I wasn't a guest in the house up to some mischief - which is a big assumption to make from a security perspective. But even so - the phone rings, and someone claiming to be a customer representative is on the line, now I have to wonder who is it really?
An external, third-party identity verification system is what's needed, not only for Web sites and other electronic transactions but for phone calls too. More on this later.
"And with whom am I speaking?" she continues, I tell her my name. Then the big question: "For security purposes, what is the property address?"
What sort of "security" is that, exactly, I wonder, as I glance down at my statement on which my address is printed in friendly 12-point Arial. If I'd stolen this statement out of my neighbor's mailbox, wouldn't I be able to answer all of these questions? Obviously it's no security at all.
Now if she called me on a phone number from my file, then perhaps she could have reasonable confidence as to my identity. Assuming, of course, that I wasn't a guest in the house up to some mischief - which is a big assumption to make from a security perspective. But even so - the phone rings, and someone claiming to be a customer representative is on the line, now I have to wonder who is it really?
An external, third-party identity verification system is what's needed, not only for Web sites and other electronic transactions but for phone calls too. More on this later.
Link Overload
Interesting post from Jack Shafer in Slate today, Links that Stink, "Grumbling about the misuse of hyperlinks on news sites." He writes:
A key point he makes is that by training us that most links are useless, we are therefore unlikely to click on a link even when it might have been useful.
When Vannevar Bush first dreamt of hyperlinks back in the 1940s, surely he envisioned something tidier than the link riots that erupt on many of today's Web pages. The extraneous links etched into most Washingtonpost.com stories, for example, make it look as though an insect rode a unicycle dipped in blue ink through the copy before you got there.
A key point he makes is that by training us that most links are useless, we are therefore unlikely to click on a link even when it might have been useful.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
New Hawaiian Tropic site launches
The new Hawaiian Tropic site has launched, after a particularly tight development timeline. It's looking sharp!
I revised their product categories somewhat, and brought the new categories up to the main navigation. They have a diverse collection of products, which could have resulted in a too-deep structure: product category (e.g., "Tanning") > product sub-category (e.g., "Tanning Oils")> product page (e.g., "Tanning Dry Oil Continuous Spray SPF 12"). Instead, we skipped the "Tanning Oils" page, and send users directly to a specific Tanning Oil product page, each of which has a right-hand sub-nav with thumbnails of all the other products within that sub-category.
We considered a "browse products by SPF" feature as we did for Banana Boat, but so many of the Hawaiian Tropic products don't have SPFs that it didn't seem appropriate in this case.
I revised their product categories somewhat, and brought the new categories up to the main navigation. They have a diverse collection of products, which could have resulted in a too-deep structure: product category (e.g., "Tanning") > product sub-category (e.g., "Tanning Oils")> product page (e.g., "Tanning Dry Oil Continuous Spray SPF 12"). Instead, we skipped the "Tanning Oils" page, and send users directly to a specific Tanning Oil product page, each of which has a right-hand sub-nav with thumbnails of all the other products within that sub-category.
We considered a "browse products by SPF" feature as we did for Banana Boat, but so many of the Hawaiian Tropic products don't have SPFs that it didn't seem appropriate in this case.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Balancing the needs of users and clients
The clients pay the bills. We work for them. But our objective is to get their message across, and that's just not going to happen if we don't properly facilitate the experience, that is, work from the customer's point of view.
How do we balance the wants of the customer with the needs of the client? Bait and switch is a tactic used by disreputable retailers, but the bait and annoy technique we often use isn't much better. The bargain is simple - want Mr Rourke to reveal what happened to Zsa Zsa and Liberace after they got off Fantasy Island? Coming right up, just stay tuned for a word from our sponsors. Got something really distasteful to sell? Then maybe we'll put it on the evening news, just before we finally reveal that hidden menace in your sock drawer.
As everyone knows by know, those days are over (thanks again, TiVo, I owe ya). But before we lament the passing of the interrupting spot, you have to wonder, did they ever really work? Certain delivery mechanisms are more inherently annoying than others (I'm looking at you, Netflix pop-up) but at the end of the day irrelevant messages are always unwelcome, no matter how politely they're presented. Conversely, sometimes people really are looking for information! Provide it, and they might just pay attention.
So, am I saying that Mr Rourke never sold any peanut butter, toilet paper, or even Chrysler Cordobas? Of course not, but one has to wonder, did the captive delivery mechanism facilitate those sales, or inhibit them? Don't forget that in the pre-DVR days, the start of that first commercial message was often the cue to go make yourself a sandwich. Now, as you fast-forward by, perhaps something catches your interest -- an ad for a new movie you've heard about, a new product you're looking forward to buying, maybe even an ad campaign that you enjoy for its own sake.
Entertaining users is great, but matching a client's unique sales proposition to a consumer's unique purchasing requirements - what could be more user-centered than that?
How do we balance the wants of the customer with the needs of the client? Bait and switch is a tactic used by disreputable retailers, but the bait and annoy technique we often use isn't much better. The bargain is simple - want Mr Rourke to reveal what happened to Zsa Zsa and Liberace after they got off Fantasy Island? Coming right up, just stay tuned for a word from our sponsors. Got something really distasteful to sell? Then maybe we'll put it on the evening news, just before we finally reveal that hidden menace in your sock drawer.
As everyone knows by know, those days are over (thanks again, TiVo, I owe ya). But before we lament the passing of the interrupting spot, you have to wonder, did they ever really work? Certain delivery mechanisms are more inherently annoying than others (I'm looking at you, Netflix pop-up) but at the end of the day irrelevant messages are always unwelcome, no matter how politely they're presented. Conversely, sometimes people really are looking for information! Provide it, and they might just pay attention.
So, am I saying that Mr Rourke never sold any peanut butter, toilet paper, or even Chrysler Cordobas? Of course not, but one has to wonder, did the captive delivery mechanism facilitate those sales, or inhibit them? Don't forget that in the pre-DVR days, the start of that first commercial message was often the cue to go make yourself a sandwich. Now, as you fast-forward by, perhaps something catches your interest -- an ad for a new movie you've heard about, a new product you're looking forward to buying, maybe even an ad campaign that you enjoy for its own sake.
Entertaining users is great, but matching a client's unique sales proposition to a consumer's unique purchasing requirements - what could be more user-centered than that?
Usability isn't always the point
"Usability" - we hear that word all the time, but what does that mean exactly and is it relevant to building brand and marketing sites?
A pure user-centered "usability" approach might mean, say, emailing a coupon directly to customers without requiring that they visit the Web site at all, or even more usable would be just mailing out cash. But that's hardly marketing, is it?
The goal is to balance the marketing needs of the client with the wants of the customer. It's not exactly "usability," necessarily, it's more about facilitating and directing the experience.
A pure user-centered "usability" approach might mean, say, emailing a coupon directly to customers without requiring that they visit the Web site at all, or even more usable would be just mailing out cash. But that's hardly marketing, is it?
The goal is to balance the marketing needs of the client with the wants of the customer. It's not exactly "usability," necessarily, it's more about facilitating and directing the experience.
Users, or Customers, or something else?
I've incorporated the initials "UX" into this blog, representing "User Experience," but around here we question if they really are "users." Is that the right term when you're talking about a brand or activation site? Does it limit us to thinking just about Web site visitors, when we should be considering the entire potential customer base?
Launching...
Now launching - yet another blog with a silly name, so that yet another blogger can talk to himself. But that's actually primarily with this blog is for - a place to keep links, notes, and references where I can get at them remotely. That said, visitors welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)