Kolko: Thoughts
on Interaction Design
So the business organizational structure doesn’t work? Tell me something I haven’t heard. I don’t see interaction design as the saving
solution. You need to reconfigure the
business’ structure to make headway on this issue. That the silo effect works against usability
comes as no surprise. The silo effect
works against success in information systems, marketing, and the list goes on. Thus when you relegate a UX team to its own
silo, of course it can’t create the user experience it finds most ideal. It’s no wonder that companies like Apple and
Starbucks don’t want to share how they’ve successfully implemented interaction
design in their business models. These
corporations have structured their organizational models differently and in
doing so have found themselves with a competitive advantage. Or could we simply refer to how UX is at the
forefront of their models as corporate culture?
Nike and Starbucks have a different approach to marketing. I know that Starbucks’ beginnings trace back
to creating user experience. It was
built into its marketing. I have yet to
be fully convinced that a UX team is even required. If a corporation emphasizes UX in its culture
across all divisions, why does it even need a UX team? My impression from the reading was that
companies who have successfully incorporated interaction design have done it
across the business model and across teams.
If you invest all teams and train them to think from the perspective of
interaction design, it will be company-wide.
In this way the silo effect can be avoided. Easier said than done, of course.
I appreciate the notion of designing with the consumer in
mind, but I still can’t help myself from questioning the motives behind incorporating
user experience. In the definitional
stage of Kolko’s process, it’s the company that initiates interaction
design. It defines the parameters and
assigns the task. Only from that point
does a user experience team begin advocating for the user. And, user experience still contributes to a
company’s bottom line. If I have a
positive and resonant experience with product x, I’m more likely to become
brand loyal. Translation:
more sales. Thus as a consumer or
user, I question the true motives behind crafting my authentic or poetic
experience.
Perhaps it’s because I’m biased by my background of working
with a non-profit that designs for impact but it seemed to me that Kolko’s
discussion of wicked problems trivialized the importance of interaction design
in the corporate world. To me, it turned
his advocacy for incorporating interaction design into the corporate business
model on its head. When there’s a wicked
problem to solve, why do I care if I’ve identified every single user engagement
point in an ecosystem diagram of buying a cell phone app? I kept comparing that to teaching students in
poverty and grappling with the achievement gap.
If I’m going to extend all the energy in successfully implementing a
process of interaction design, I want it to matter. Maybe, I’m trying to be too idealistic.
Sturken and
Cartwright: “Images, Power, and Politics”
and “Viewers Make Meaning”
As I read chapters 1 and 2 I tried to determine what connections
could be made from Sturken and Cartwright to Kolko. How do practices of looking relate to user
experience? Initially I was intrigued
that both texts approached experiences through the individual. Sturken and Cartwright make a point of
focusing on the viewer of an image as opposed to the audience. Kolko, in turn, almost seems to attack the
traditional marketing approach since it looks at such broad demographic
information and fails to consider the individual aspect of a user. From this point my thinking turned to how
Kolko addresses how experiences are created for the user. There is a lot of behind the scenes work to
create the overall user experience. From
defining the task to organizing information with a concept map, Kolko outlined
the process. He also gave examples of
what reactions one should try to elicit from the experience. From there, at least in terms of visuals,
Sturken and Cartwright seem to take over.
Once Kolko has explained how to create an experience, Sturken and
Cartwright begin to analyze different ways viewers will react. Context plays a large role in how viewers respond
to images. Kolko touches on this briefly
when he discusses experience as story but fails to consider how users may have
an oppositional reading when decoding the experience. That left me with the question: what happens when interaction design
backfires, which seems inevitable, and users have a negative experience?
No comments:
Post a Comment