This is the Nielsen Norman Group UX Podcast.
I'm Therese Fessenden and today I'm not the host.
That's right.
I'm Rachel Krause
and I am going to be guest hosting today's episode.
Yes, I'm super excited.
This is episode 10 of our Humble Podcast
which means we've basically hit our very first milestone
which is double digits.
We're really glad to have made it this far
with our listener support, your support.
So to celebrate this, we're shaking things up.
Yeah, and it's exciting
because Therese, you have gotten the opportunity
to interview so many UX specialists
on a good amount of pressing UX topics
but I thought it would be really fun to give you a chance
to talk about a topic near and dear to you.
Yeah, this is exciting.
I'm also really nervous now that I'm in the hot seat
but yes, today Rachel will be asking me all the questions.
How did you get to this prestigious position
of being the podcast host?
Tell me more.
So it was an idea I had about a year ago.
I'd been part of NNG for about four years
at that point last year.
It was something I just felt like we really needed to do.
We had such great instructors,
not that I'm biased or anything
but we had such great instructors that had so much knowledge
and were just such great fun people to talk to.
I felt like it was a great opportunity
to share our knowledge in a different way.
You teach a class on emerging patterns
and you're always looking for emerging trends
in the UX world.
So what are some of the most interesting things
that you've come across in terms of emerging cool things
that are happening in the UX world lately?
Oh yeah, this is a class I love.
And of course I love all my classes.
It's like picking your favorite child,
like picking your favorite class.
But this is a class that I do work on quite a bit
because the title is emerging patterns.
We're constantly on the hunt for what is not just new
because new technology is everywhere all the time.
Every second there's some new development.
And as much as it can be fun to find the newest
and latest trends, what's often a lot harder
is figuring out what's going to last.
Like what is actually going to impact people's work?
What's worth the time and energy?
And that's a harder question to answer.
And I know a lot of people come to the class
like wanting to predict the future.
And I certainly wanna predict the future too.
And there are some frameworks we can use
to sort of evaluate whether a trend is gonna stick around.
But one that is particularly top of mind to me,
at least one I'm excited about is blockchain and NFTs,
which is kind of nerdy of me,
but also is something that I do think
is gonna change the way we do our work.
But what I don't think will change
will be how people react to designs
and like what people are looking for
and people's expectations.
Like I think blockchain has a ton of potential
to like democratize technology as a whole,
redistribute wealth, make data more encrypted,
more protected and enable people to do lots of things.
So a lot of that stuff excites me
cause I'm like, this is really a new technology
that's gonna change things.
The same time though, I know that there are gonna be folks,
like a lot of my family members
who are gonna see this stuff and be like, block what?
What's an NFT, a nifty?
That is gonna be part of this longer,
more challenging task,
which is not just can we educate people
on what blockchain is,
but why do people even need to be educated
on what blockchain is?
Is there any other way that maybe we can translate
what we're creating into more user centric terms?
And so in a lot of ways,
I think this space is very developer centric
kind of by necessity
because this technology is still emerging,
it's still being built
and we're still exploring its capabilities.
But also it's not something
that is necessarily gonna be super mainstream
until we have a lot more UX effort.
So that's why I'm excited about it
because I think there's a ton of potential
for like UX professionals to like get involved
and really make this become a more mainstream technology.
But yeah, that's where my brain's at
is NFTs and blockchain.
But yeah, it's something that,
it's one of many different little emerging trends
that is currently on my mind.
Definitely, I think it's interesting to think about
blockchain and NFTs and kind of the,
I kind of envision a mini journey map in my head
about someone going through that process for the first time.
And I feel like the scale of user satisfaction
in the beginning is probably very low
in terms of new user,
just from the confusion that might come across it,
especially something that doesn't feel very tangible
like a website or an application.
So I think going kind of along those lines
of talking about user satisfaction,
we talk about the word delight a lot in UX.
Oh, we have to delight our users.
How delightful is that experience?
And I think it's a term that's thrown around a lot
in the UX world.
Oh yes.
How would you define delight in UX?
I love these questions,
these like deep questions about defining things
because they're difficult questions,
but I think it's important to really think about
this definition of what delight really is.
I think a lot of people think of the word delight
and they think of someone like dancing in their seat
or like laughing, smiling,
just genuinely exhilarating, positive feeling.
And that's not wrong.
I would say that's a form of delight for sure.
And it's great if we have people feeling that way
about the things we design, the things we create.
I also think delight can take a different form.
So when I really think about the definition of delight,
I think of it as a positive feeling.
And that sounds so vague,
but I think it's important to define it that way
because you can have something like surface delight
versus deep delight.
So you have an article that I'll link in the show notes
about this theory of positive emotion
and how surface delight and deep delight
both have a role to play.
And so usually when people use the term delight,
they're thinking of things like surface delight.
So surface delight would be like
some type of interface element that makes people happy
or has like a positive feeling,
but it's usually really contextual
and like local to a particular area of the interface.
It's not necessarily a positive feeling
that extends for the entire user's journey
or experience with a product.
So an example I like to think about is like
an animated GIF, right?
So you see an animated GIF.
Side note, I will always, always call it GIF.
It will never be a GIF.
I will die on this hill.
That's peanut butter.
That is peanut butter.
Nonetheless, animated GIF, right?
That would be an example of this kind of local,
contextual thing that can bring us joy.
It's not gonna change our world.
It's not gonna necessarily move us
to some deep feeling of joy,
but it's something that makes us happy
potentially in that moment.
Other examples could be like a joke, right?
A joke that's told in an error message.
So those would be examples of like surface delight,
but deep delight is so much harder to achieve.
And I like the term deep
because it often goes beyond individual interface elements.
It goes into how well we are meeting someone's needs
as a human being, but also as a user, as a customer.
We can also go deeper into thinking about
how streamlined is our workflow.
And I often joke around that
when you think about deep delight,
the last thing you wanna hear is streamlined workflows.
That sounds like the most boring way to approach
making a really enjoyable interface.
But the fact is when something is streamlined
and actually meets people's needs
and not just meets their needs or expectations,
but exceeds those expectations
and delivers even more than was expected and adds value.
That's where we really get these more holistic,
delightful experiences.
So one example, actually, this is an example
I give in my class, Persuasive and Emotional Design.
It's actually a TurboTax example.
And it was a case study about this particular interface element.
And I'll put that in the show notes as well,
but it's this person who was doing their tax filing,
which is very timely as we released this episode.
But this person was doing their tax filing
and their spouse had just passed away that year.
So this person was doing their normal filing
and it got to the section about the spouse
and doing their income information.
And then the workflow asks, you know,
do any of these apply to Pat, the spouse?
And then there are two check boxes.
One of them is Pat was legally blind
and the other one is Pat passed away this year.
So this person checked the box,
which is Pat passed away this year.
And this little message popped up that said,
we're sorry for your loss.
We'll make sure that everything gets filed correctly.
And the person who had seen this had written a note
to the TurboTax team, like, please pass on, you know,
how meaningful this was to me.
Now, when you think of delight,
that's not something people necessarily think of, right?
Someone who's mourning a loved one.
But that was a great example of how delight can often go
well beyond just like this one dimensional happy emotion.
And so, you know, emotion is really this, you know,
that's another deep question.
What is emotion?
It's often this, you know, this more complex realm
where you have things like positive and negative affect.
And then you also have, you know,
high energy versus low energy.
And so you can have something as nuanced
as like cathartic feelings,
even though it's not delight in the more conventional sense,
it really is, you know, a meaningful experience.
So that's what I think of when I think of delight,
I think of an experience that really goes beyond
any single interaction and delivers value,
you know, in someone's life.
So, yeah, so that's what I think of it.
It's a big question, but it's a lofty goal for sure.
I think that's really interesting.
I haven't heard that TurboTax example,
but I think that's so powerful.
And it really shows that delight, like you said,
isn't just, doesn't just have to be this positive thing,
but it's something that leaves a lasting impression
or something that I would probably recommend
because they had put that extra thought into it.
And it is, you know, taking into consideration
what I'm going through as a user,
not just trying to throw a bunch of legalese at me.
So I think that's really cool.
Yeah, we talk about designing for delight.
And now that we kind of know all the facets of delight,
that it's more than just a happiness
that comes with a product.
But I have this question about should delight
always be something that we strive for?
You know, should we always be trying to delight the user?
Like if I am trying to schedule a doctor's appointment,
is that something that should be delightful?
Is that something that we need to make
all these extra efforts for?
Or should it just be really straightforward and simple?
I think there's an opportunity to build a relationship.
And so when I think of delight in these contexts,
I don't necessarily think of it as how fun can we make it?
Although that can certainly be something we strive for.
I don't think that should be the main goal.
Maybe what we can focus on is what our users' expectations are
and whether or not we can exceed them.
So if I were to take that doctor's appointment example,
actually a good one I can give, it's somewhat related,
it's a veterinary clinic example.
So fun fact, I have a dog and a cat.
I've somehow miraculously managed to keep them silent
during these podcast episodes.
We got an email from a vet clinic that was like,
oh, Finley's vaccine is coming up due,
something along those lines.
That's not something I would necessarily say
is like super joyful,
but that's helpful because I had no idea
when Finley's veterinary appointment was going to be due.
So stuff like that might not be seen
as conventionally delightful,
but it can be something that exceeds someone's expectations.
And over time, that type of anticipating someone's needs
is what builds that relationship
and what ultimately builds that more holistic sense of delight.
So another example I can give,
once again in the vet clinic vein,
we went to a clinic where they had a little blackboard.
And before each patient went into each room,
they would write the patient that was coming into the room
on their name on the board.
When I say patient, I'm talking about a pet, right?
An animal, they're writing the animal's name
on this little blackboard.
But then when the owner and that patient
would walk into the room,
the first thing the owner would see
would be their pet's name written lovingly
in a blackboard chalk with a little heart on it.
So small detail.
Ultimately, does it really make a huge difference
in that particular pet's treatment?
Not really, right?
It doesn't necessarily impact that particular interaction,
but it adds value.
So I think there are opportunities to have delight.
Should it be our primary goal?
I think that ultimately meeting users,
like if I didn't get treatment at that vet clinic
and I just saw these little heart-shaped scrolls
on a blackboard, probably wouldn't be a great experience.
But if that need is being met
and then there was additional value being met,
I think that's where the opportunity really lies.
Yeah, I think that's interesting.
You talk about delight doesn't have to be the main goal
and should it even be the main goal?
We get a lot of direction, I think,
from stakeholders, from clients that are saying,
we want to delight our users.
We want to give them the best experience possible
and everything.
How do we manage those kinds of expectations
with our stakeholders and clients
when that's kind of their mentality?
That's a really good question.
Cause I do think to some extent,
we should try to improve every facet of an experience,
but we also don't have like endless money
or time or people and if only, right?
Oh, it would be amazing.
And even if we are one of these massive
multinational corporations with a ton
of money and a ton of human resources
and a ton of opportunities to improve,
we're still going to see the issues
that you could see in any organization,
silos and difficulty coordinating.
So yeah, I would say it's good to strive
for constant improvement,
but I think it's easy to get lost in the embellishments.
And I think it's really important to dig down
into why we're even making those embellishments
in the first place.
There was this organization that I was on hold with
for a while, got transferred about seven times,
no less than seven times to different people.
And at the end of the seventh,
I had saxophone weight music blasting in my ear
and I was furious.
That's when I think about embellishments
being prioritized over the actual journey,
over the actual user needs.
And actually to use Kara Pernice's slogan
that she coined a while back,
you cannot impose joy.
Delight is a noble cause,
but we can't impose this exuberant delight
on somebody if they are not happy.
If they're not having their needs met,
if we're trying to help resolve those needs,
it does us no good to focus on happiness.
It does us a lot more good to focus on
where our users are feeling pain.
And I know for you, Rachel,
as an instructor of design thinking,
I'm sure this is a common theme that comes up,
but I know we both have that same philosophy,
which is that if we focus on why people
are doing something in the first place,
as opposed to how can we make this fun,
that's where we're really gonna have
a much greater impact,
perhaps even more return on our efforts,
on our investments.
I think that's great because I think it's easy
to focus on the happy path,
the path that is the most straightforward,
that is if everything works perfectly,
this is our happy path.
But I think you're right.
When we actually focus in on the problems,
the pain points,
the places where users are frustrated,
we actually come up with even better ideas,
and it's a chance to really focus
on those real problems
rather than just picking that low-hanging fruit.
So I think that that is a really good point
and actually opens us up
to create even better things
when we do focus on the areas
where people are frustrated
and not try to make them superficially happy,
but actually solve their problems.
Right, yeah.
And in a similar vein,
yes, we should definitely try
to solve users' problems.
I think we should also not just try
to barely check the box, right?
If there is some way
we can really add more value,
that's going to be much better.
And I'm actually going to quote you,
but in one of your courses,
they use DesignOps,
where you discuss the concept
of minimum viable product, right?
Which is this idea that there's this minimum product
that we have to deliver
in order for it to actually be viable in the market.
And I think that's a good starting point
if we want to build something out
in a very small or short timeline,
right, if we're really lean.
But you bring up this concept
of a minimum lovable product.
So yeah, if you want to share more about that,
I remember when you brought that up in your class,
I remember my ears lit up
and I'm like, that's what we need.
That's what we really need to focus on
is not just building something that's viable,
like it checks the box,
but something that actually is meaningful
and adds value.
Yeah, so the case study in question here
that we talk about minimum lovable product in DesignOps,
it comes from Autodesk, I believe.
And they kind of had this frustration
with minimum viable product
where they were really only checking the boxes
for engineering and QA and business requirements,
but they really weren't thinking about usability
and usability was kind of like an afterthought.
And that's, I think, a common concern with MVP
is we forget about making things
actually good and easy to use.
We just want them to basically work.
So Autodesk came up with a just kind of a new lens
to think about that same concept
and looked at it as minimum lovable product.
So when we deliver a product,
it should also be something that users want,
enjoy using and actually love it.
And I think it's such a,
one of those things is probably a little corny,
but I think just that mindset shift
makes a lot of difference in what we build.
Yeah, for sure.
Cause now you're thinking less
about how fast can I make something
and is it good enough?
Now we're thinking not only is it just good enough to ship,
but is this something that is worth shipping
in the first place?
Is it something that's worth the time and effort for?
Yeah, definitely.
Now going back to how to use persuasion
and emotion in your interface design,
what advice would you give to UXers out there
who are looking to better engage with their users
and create some of these delightful experiences
just based on what you've encountered over the years
and the different trends that you're seeing?
Yeah, the word engagement always makes my like hairs
on the back of my neck stand up.
Cause engagement can be good.
It can also be really destructive
in terms of being a metric that we evaluate.
So as for engaging with users,
I think it's important to really identify
what does it mean to engage with users?
What does it mean for us as a business?
What does it mean for our users?
What do they get out of this?
And I think ultimately that delightful experience
that we're pursuing is going to come
from whether or not we're engaging in a way
that actually brings value to our users' lives.
Like does something that impacts them positively.
And so one of the things I bring up
in the persuasive and emotional design class
is this hierarchy of user needs.
And this is sort of like attributed to two people.
I know Aaron Walter in his book, Designing for Emotion,
he identifies some of these user needs.
Kind of starts at the bottom with like, is it functional?
Like, is it functional as a product or a service, right?
And then from there you build up, you get reliable.
Does it work consistently?
Does it bug out sometimes?
Then goes into usable.
Is it actually something people can intuitively understand?
And then you get to pleasurable or enjoyable.
And at the very top you get meaningful.
So actually that very top was not in Aaron Walter's book,
but Daniel Rustin had this great article
on the Google design blog about that particular top
of the pyramid, because that was a gap
that he noticed as well.
It's like, we can have a delightful interface,
but if it ultimately isn't meaningful,
if it's not addressing pain, if it's not adding value,
then are we really at the pinnacle of our designs?
And the answer is not really, right?
We can always do better.
So in terms of engaging with users,
creating delightful experiences,
I think the best way to really build that relationship out
is one, identify what those deep user needs are.
And two, make sure that we're respecting that relationship
that we have with our users.
I think in many ways there can be a disregard
of the trust that our users have, our customers have,
or a disregard that it even is a relationship, right?
We kind of fixate on the numbers.
We fixate on increasing metrics, right?
Maybe it's time on task or time on the page.
And that's a number we just, we want to boost
because frankly, those numbers increasing give us bonuses, right?
Sometimes incentives are tied to these performance changes.
Or maybe it's, you know, the bounce rate decreases
or the exit rate decreases.
So, you know, a large variety of different metrics,
which may be on the surface seem like good or bad metrics.
But when you dig deeper and kind of learn like, okay,
for example, when someone's at the end of a checkout flow,
it makes sense that they would exit the page.
They're done purchasing, like they're finished.
So, you know, simply looking at exit rate, bounce rate,
or time on task isn't always going to give a full picture
of what someone's really experiencing.
And when we overly fixate,
we can disregard the real context that matters,
which is maybe someone is spending a lot of time on a page,
not because they're engaged,
but because they literally can't find what they're looking for.
In which case, we're not doing a great job
at building that relationship.
And if our other evaluation is how many pages they click on,
again, maybe that's not actually engagement overall.
So don't get too drawn in by the metrics
and see if you can learn more about how your customers feel
at each step of the process.
That sounds very fluffy,
but there is a level of objectivity you can give
to that type of research.
You can do observational research and see,
you can actually analyze facial expressions.
You can look for micro expressions.
Now, there are some tools out there that do this,
but I would say there's no tool
that really substitutes understanding context
and why someone feels a certain way.
So I feel like that's where you can have the most impact
in terms of actually meeting needs
and building a relationship that lasts longer
than just one interaction, right?
A relationship that lasts maybe across many interactions
because we actually get a chance to build that trust
and build that customer loyalty.
So that would be my recommendation is use metrics,
but make sure you're looking at the big picture.
Yeah, really having that balance of quantitative metrics
and then qualitative insights is really going to give you
kind of a well-rounded picture
of how people use your applications.
I think that's really good.
And I think we're seeing that more and more.
Stakeholders in business love quantitative metrics
and they love to advocate for them.
And us as UXers are kind of like,
hey, cool, those are great.
But also let's talk to people and see how they feel.
Yeah, there was this actually a great article too.
I read it in Harvard Business Review.
It was about improving empathy skills
and the number one recommendation
was not perspective taking.
So there was this difference between perspective taking
and another strategy.
We often think of perspective taking as,
oh, put yourself in someone's shoes.
But actually perspective taking limits empathy
because then we start to broadcast our assumptions
about how we would behave in that particular situation
as opposed to what that person would actually do
or how they actually would behave
and what motivates them and what's important to them.
And so it actually is not a great strategy
for building empathy and instead perspective getting,
which is like actually talking to human beings,
talking to as many human beings as you can,
that's going to be a much better strategy
at helping you be better at reading other people's stories.
So it's not just talking to your coworkers more often
or people you already know,
but talking to a variety of people as well.
And that sort of comes with the territory
of doing user research,
but especially as you find maybe you're interviewing
the same types of people over and over again,
maybe it's time to stretch out a little,
see if you can interview a slightly different
type of customer.
And you might be surprised what you learn.
I know I'm constantly surprised by what I learn.
Users are an endless well of interesting surprises.
Certainly makes my job fun and unexpected and surprising.
Absolutely.
I know you and Alita talked about that
in an episode on the false consensus effect as well,
which is a great one to listen to.
Shameless plug.
Shameless plug.
I know I'm taking this guest hosting thing very seriously.
You're a natural, it's great.
So, Therese, I think it's about getting to that time here.
Tell us where people can follow you and your work.
So on the NN Group website,
I'm always writing, publishing videos.
I'm also on this podcast.
But other than that, on social media channels,
you can find me on Twitter at TBfest, that's T-B-F-E-S-S.
I'm also on LinkedIn as well.
So, oh, and I just joined Clubhouse.
There's another place you can find me as well.
It's also at TBfest.
But yeah, thank you, Rachel, for being a host.
Yeah, no, you know, Therese,
I will gladly step in and interview you
anytime you want to talk about something exciting.
I love to hear it.
Any of the topics that Therese talked about
where she referenced any articles or courses,
we'll put those in the show notes for you all.
So you can feel free to check those out after the show.
And then lastly, if you like the show,
you want to support us,
please hit subscribe on whatever platform
you're listening from.
And if you're on Apple Podcasts,
we would love to have you leave us a rating.
It really helps us just get the word out,
not just about our show, but the research that we do,
which allows us to inform you of all new,
exciting UX topics.
And it would really just mean a lot to us.
So Therese, I have loved sitting in for you.
This is harder than it looks.
So thank you for putting me up to the challenge.
And it was really cool to hear your perspectives on delight
and just how we make things better for users.
Yes, it was a lot of fun.
So yeah, on that note, thanks everyone for listening.
And I guess that's our cue to say, remember,
keep it simple.