Tags: Design, Return of Investment, User Experience, UX, Web design
There is the challenge that many UX or Usability issues go unfixed. One of the biggest causes is that there is often no financial argument or Return on Investment (ROI) case being made by the UX team. ROI enables teams to overcome arguments of resource limitations, and opposing opinions of other stakeholders by putting hard financial numbers to the argument and show the benefit that would be achieved if issues were fixed.
This workshop will explain how to create a Return on Investment Argument for User Experience, quickly and easily. We will share our methods to simply calculate a Return on Investment. We will give examples for both web applications in competitive markets, and for in-house applications behind firewalls.
The workshop will cover both the methods, and how to collect the data to act as the inputs to the calculation. We will go through practical examples of both calculating the ROI as well as defending the calculation. Being able to make an ROI argument makes your UX and Usability findings more likely to be implemented as well as increases the audience for your work.
At the end of this one day workshop you will walk away with the knowledge of:-
The workshop has been designed for the UX practitioner who has little finance or maths knowledge. You will need to have some experience of User Experience and be able to do basic arithmetic in Excel.
The workshop will be given by James Page and Sabrina Mach. Both of them have many years of experience quantitatively analyzing websites from a User Experience point of view. They have helped clients ranging from British Telecom to Vodafone, Millenium Bank and Sky, and worked in conjunction with agencies from Ogilvy, SapientNitro, LBI, Flow, and Head London. They are both founders of Webnographer, which is the world’s leading Remote Usability Specialists.
When: 26th July 2013.
Where: At Webnographer’s in Lisbon office, Portugal.
Cost: 150€ + (€34.50 IVA/VAT) until 8th July and then 250€ + (€57.50 IVA/VAT) after. (Includes lunches and coffee). There is a student and start-up discount. Contact us to find out more.
Getting there: We have deals with hotels. Contact us, with the sort of Hotel you are looking for and she can put you in touch with the right place.
We are looking forward to seeing you in Lisbon!
Buy your ticket here: http://roilisbon.eventbrite.com
Image credit: Miguel Vieira http://www.flickr.com/photos/miguelvieira/
Tags: Design, measuring, testing
The dilemma of visual convention vs. ground breaking new design seems to be a fearsome concern for usability specialists. In a recent blog post on the Concept 7 blog, Stefan Wobben quotes a paper by Luis Santa-Maria and Mary C. Dyson form the University of Reading that investigated the impact of violating visual conventions on user’s performance and orientation. Santa-Maria and Dyson explain:
“Although initially violating visual conventions might hinder user performance and leave users disoriented this experiment indicates their experiment indicates that these problems can be short-lived and users can adapt reasonably fast to a new set of visual conventions.”
This is good to hear, yet its no news as such. If design had always only followed convention we would not have progressed from the written word to the printing press to computers and the internet.
“So the decision to whether conform or violate visual conventions when designing a website should ponder that although users might adapt quickly to novelty there is an initial performance hindrance and disorientation.”
They have a good point there in encouraging those violations. Too many studies focus on first time use, but not repeat users, how behaviour changes over time, and the experience and use of the system by expert users. A single lab study as a Q+A exercise just before the launch of your website is not going to do the trick in gaining this understanding. Usability is an ongoing process, not a one of label of approval. As Harry Brignal pointed out on his blog: “A UX designer’s job is never done.”
The one great thing about remote usability testing is that it is cost efficient and can therefore be carried out more often, than a lab study. Webnographer, as a remote usability testing tool, makes ongoing testing simple and affordable. It makes it easy to test the learning curve and behaviour and satisfaction of experienced users.
As Jared Spool explained back in 2003 small ongoing changes carry far less risk, then a major relaunch and re-design, which is very likely going to fail. As with the printing press, changes in improvements were small, stretched out over a length of time and we ended up with the internet, which makes the spreading of ideas and information easier than ever. For website design, the small changes allow you to measure the effect of that change on your users, and you will find out whether the change has made your site better or just different, and how it affects your users over time.