Predictive interfaces
In the past few years, large web services (Google, Yandex, Amazon, etc.) have been deliberately moving towards providing users with personalized content based on analyzing query history and some other metrics, for example, geolocation. Together with recent events related to the PRISM project, Snowden and the security of personal data, in certain circles this approach even began to provoke hysteria, the main points of which can be reduced to the following:
Companies and victims of hysteria are increasingly talking about personalized content, when each user is offered information that is most relevant to their needs, which have been analyzed by the system. The next step in this direction from the point of view of customer experience should be the model of predictive interfaces, in which not only the content is personalized, but also the method of its presentation. As a result, for two different users the same software may look different.
About this and talk.
')
For a start, I want to share one interesting note with the Habra community: PREDICTIVE APPS ARE THE NEXT BIG THING IN APP DEVELOPMENT
We abstract from loud words. Let's not beat ourselves in the chest and say that predictive interfaces are the future. It’s just another solution and goals achievement that has both advantages and disadvantages. Let us try to speculate a little how this can work.
The classical structure of the software (desktop program, Internet resource, mobile application, etc.) is static and, as a rule, displays the hierarchy of sections by its functionality. For example, in Microsoft Word, program sections are divided into:
Any interface blocks are also static. The menu will always be on top, the work area is in the middle, the document status bar is at the bottom. The interface itself is “intuitive”, because You saw it on the set of other software of a similar type: the central workspace and the multi-level hierarchical menu at the top (although besides the ribbon menu, many were initially unaccustomed to it, because it differed from the classical drop-down lists). Regardless of who is the user, for all Microsoft Word looks the same, if the user himself just will not customize it for themselves. But do you know a lot of accountants or secretaries who personalize the settings of office programs for themselves? The main idea here is that for all such software, users have to adapt to it, and not vice versa.
A static interface in such software is the same as a store with product shelves and fixed prices. It is designed to serve the large traffic of customers who have to adapt to the store's internal routine, even if they came to buy one magazine only. Anyway, poor buyers will have to go through all the departments with fish, meat, wine, manufactured goods to go to the cashier and buy their favorite magazine, participating along the way in the great mystery of consumption, stimulated by sales techniques of the business owner. And no one asks the client of such a store what he needs: a magazine or go through the whole store, and maybe he will take something else ?! In such a supermarket, the client must serve himself: go to him, find the necessary, bring to the cashier and buy. It does not sound very pleasant, but that is our reality. Another we do not know yet.
Imagine another picture. You enter the store, a polite store employee rushes to you and unobtrusively asks what interests you. You answer him that you would like to buy your favorite magazine. And he is - “How so! How so! Of course, I remember, Ivan Ivanovich, just yesterday a new number came out! By the way, on the same topic, the same publisher began to produce a new journal, but only with a more scientific presentation of the material! ” And you are: “Wow! Thank you very much, mate! Wrap two at once - I'll give to a friend. ” And leave happy and satisfied. Got what he wanted right away. Without various preludes, like putting things in the locker, traveling through a huge complex with shelves of goods and waiting in line at the ticket office. A smiling worker is always with you. He is not intrusive, but he is ready to answer any of your questions and fulfill any of your whims. Where customer loyalty will be higher? And where will the conversion be higher?
Here, many have to argue - well, how? After all, the meaning of the IKEA labyrinths is that the client should buy not only what he needs, but also something else. And we will not argue. These are two different models. One is effective in one case, the other in the other. But exactly one thing. The store should work for the client, and then the client will work for the store. Any software is just a means to achieve certain goals of users, a tool to implement business requirements, a bridge for the buyer to contact the seller. The current software tries to be “everything for everyone”, from version to version it expands its functionality, increasing its capabilities, and, as a result, complicating the interface. It turns out very overloaded things that you don’t understand right away, and 90% of the functionality that users simply don’t use, because they don’t need it. As a result, we get something like this:
So, we have two completely different approaches: function-oriented, when the interface structure is rigidly defined and cannot be changed, or can be changed in a very narrow sense, and customer-oriented, when the interface structure is dynamic, context-dependent and fully defined user goals. The truth, as always, is in the middle.
Let's go back to the shopping example. In the second case, with an unobtrusive but helpful sales assistant, many buyers, as a rule, can not decide. When you offer the buyer to choose, he can not make this choice. Because the average buyer does not know what he wants until he sees it. This is how the human psyche works and one cannot get away from it. This will tell you how any designer who redraws the logo for the fifth time, as well as any seller who demonstrates the seventh model of shoes. A person needs to “hook on” for something, he needs an anchor, the starting point from which he will go.
In the same way, a predictive interface should provide its user with a minimum set of functions that the user will build on. This minimal interface is intended for user input into the context. Suppose we want to implement some business and decided that for this we need some software. Since we know a little bit about business analysis, we identified the main user groups and their characteristics and goals. For each of the goals, we determined what kind of functionality it would close, and also took steps to use this functionality to achieve the goals of users. The functionality is presented in the form of a set of different interface primitives, whether it be forms, areas with information, menus, hints, etc. As a result, we received a number of interfaces and a roadmap for its provision, depending on the chosen goal. Note that we did not create the interface structure of the software; we made sets of interfaces and the sequence of their display to the user.
At the beginning of the application, we provide the user with only those interface forms that are introductory for each of his goals. Interacting with the primary forms, the user designates his needs and goals, which the system should recognize based on the previous analysis of user profiles and propose a further set of interfaces according to the roadmap of the identified goal. So the main way of the software user can be built On this way, additional sets of interfaces are already being hung to enhance one or another microconversion, such as an example with a journal of similar subjects.
Why can this work? For example, we have a restaurant search site. We know that our users are primarily interested in where there are restaurants near them, top restaurants, as well as restaurant promotions. Do you think they really need an interface similar to restoclub.ru website ?! I'm sure not. Many software developers do not understand this. As a result, many users change the software, perhaps for the worst in functionality, but more responsive to their goals and requirements. This is the meaning of UX. This is a business philosophy. First you work for a client, then he works for you.
The predictive approach is especially relevant in software with a complex interface and / or several groups of users with different goals. By providing functionality in context, we save the user time to work with the functionality, reduce the time to study it, and increase customer loyalty to us for a long time. I suppose that with the development of big data along with social networks, the number of applications adhering to the customer-oriented approach will only increase. Probably, predictive interfaces can affect the very concept of satisfying user requirements by changing the model from program-as-a-product to function-as-a-product.
- the Internet has ceased to be the same for all;
- users can now only show what they need without the right to choose;
- all of us are being watched.
Companies and victims of hysteria are increasingly talking about personalized content, when each user is offered information that is most relevant to their needs, which have been analyzed by the system. The next step in this direction from the point of view of customer experience should be the model of predictive interfaces, in which not only the content is personalized, but also the method of its presentation. As a result, for two different users the same software may look different.
About this and talk.
')
For a start, I want to share one interesting note with the Habra community: PREDICTIVE APPS ARE THE NEXT BIG THING IN APP DEVELOPMENT
We abstract from loud words. Let's not beat ourselves in the chest and say that predictive interfaces are the future. It’s just another solution and goals achievement that has both advantages and disadvantages. Let us try to speculate a little how this can work.
The classical structure of the software (desktop program, Internet resource, mobile application, etc.) is static and, as a rule, displays the hierarchy of sections by its functionality. For example, in Microsoft Word, program sections are divided into:
- Primary for working with text
- Font
- Paragraph
- Styles
- etc.
- Insert content
- Tables
- Illustrations
- Multimedia
- Links
- etc.
- Page layout
- Page settings
- Paragraph
- Streamlining
- etc.
- Workspace with document
- etc.
Any interface blocks are also static. The menu will always be on top, the work area is in the middle, the document status bar is at the bottom. The interface itself is “intuitive”, because You saw it on the set of other software of a similar type: the central workspace and the multi-level hierarchical menu at the top (although besides the ribbon menu, many were initially unaccustomed to it, because it differed from the classical drop-down lists). Regardless of who is the user, for all Microsoft Word looks the same, if the user himself just will not customize it for themselves. But do you know a lot of accountants or secretaries who personalize the settings of office programs for themselves? The main idea here is that for all such software, users have to adapt to it, and not vice versa.
A static interface in such software is the same as a store with product shelves and fixed prices. It is designed to serve the large traffic of customers who have to adapt to the store's internal routine, even if they came to buy one magazine only. Anyway, poor buyers will have to go through all the departments with fish, meat, wine, manufactured goods to go to the cashier and buy their favorite magazine, participating along the way in the great mystery of consumption, stimulated by sales techniques of the business owner. And no one asks the client of such a store what he needs: a magazine or go through the whole store, and maybe he will take something else ?! In such a supermarket, the client must serve himself: go to him, find the necessary, bring to the cashier and buy. It does not sound very pleasant, but that is our reality. Another we do not know yet.
Imagine another picture. You enter the store, a polite store employee rushes to you and unobtrusively asks what interests you. You answer him that you would like to buy your favorite magazine. And he is - “How so! How so! Of course, I remember, Ivan Ivanovich, just yesterday a new number came out! By the way, on the same topic, the same publisher began to produce a new journal, but only with a more scientific presentation of the material! ” And you are: “Wow! Thank you very much, mate! Wrap two at once - I'll give to a friend. ” And leave happy and satisfied. Got what he wanted right away. Without various preludes, like putting things in the locker, traveling through a huge complex with shelves of goods and waiting in line at the ticket office. A smiling worker is always with you. He is not intrusive, but he is ready to answer any of your questions and fulfill any of your whims. Where customer loyalty will be higher? And where will the conversion be higher?
Here, many have to argue - well, how? After all, the meaning of the IKEA labyrinths is that the client should buy not only what he needs, but also something else. And we will not argue. These are two different models. One is effective in one case, the other in the other. But exactly one thing. The store should work for the client, and then the client will work for the store. Any software is just a means to achieve certain goals of users, a tool to implement business requirements, a bridge for the buyer to contact the seller. The current software tries to be “everything for everyone”, from version to version it expands its functionality, increasing its capabilities, and, as a result, complicating the interface. It turns out very overloaded things that you don’t understand right away, and 90% of the functionality that users simply don’t use, because they don’t need it. As a result, we get something like this:
So, we have two completely different approaches: function-oriented, when the interface structure is rigidly defined and cannot be changed, or can be changed in a very narrow sense, and customer-oriented, when the interface structure is dynamic, context-dependent and fully defined user goals. The truth, as always, is in the middle.
Let's go back to the shopping example. In the second case, with an unobtrusive but helpful sales assistant, many buyers, as a rule, can not decide. When you offer the buyer to choose, he can not make this choice. Because the average buyer does not know what he wants until he sees it. This is how the human psyche works and one cannot get away from it. This will tell you how any designer who redraws the logo for the fifth time, as well as any seller who demonstrates the seventh model of shoes. A person needs to “hook on” for something, he needs an anchor, the starting point from which he will go.
In the same way, a predictive interface should provide its user with a minimum set of functions that the user will build on. This minimal interface is intended for user input into the context. Suppose we want to implement some business and decided that for this we need some software. Since we know a little bit about business analysis, we identified the main user groups and their characteristics and goals. For each of the goals, we determined what kind of functionality it would close, and also took steps to use this functionality to achieve the goals of users. The functionality is presented in the form of a set of different interface primitives, whether it be forms, areas with information, menus, hints, etc. As a result, we received a number of interfaces and a roadmap for its provision, depending on the chosen goal. Note that we did not create the interface structure of the software; we made sets of interfaces and the sequence of their display to the user.
At the beginning of the application, we provide the user with only those interface forms that are introductory for each of his goals. Interacting with the primary forms, the user designates his needs and goals, which the system should recognize based on the previous analysis of user profiles and propose a further set of interfaces according to the roadmap of the identified goal. So the main way of the software user can be built On this way, additional sets of interfaces are already being hung to enhance one or another microconversion, such as an example with a journal of similar subjects.
Why can this work? For example, we have a restaurant search site. We know that our users are primarily interested in where there are restaurants near them, top restaurants, as well as restaurant promotions. Do you think they really need an interface similar to restoclub.ru website ?! I'm sure not. Many software developers do not understand this. As a result, many users change the software, perhaps for the worst in functionality, but more responsive to their goals and requirements. This is the meaning of UX. This is a business philosophy. First you work for a client, then he works for you.
The predictive approach is especially relevant in software with a complex interface and / or several groups of users with different goals. By providing functionality in context, we save the user time to work with the functionality, reduce the time to study it, and increase customer loyalty to us for a long time. I suppose that with the development of big data along with social networks, the number of applications adhering to the customer-oriented approach will only increase. Probably, predictive interfaces can affect the very concept of satisfying user requirements by changing the model from program-as-a-product to function-as-a-product.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/198290/
All Articles