At Pivot + Levy we focus on the last mile—the final points of contact between your brand and your customers. There are multiple facets to the last mile that encompass consumer facing web sites and the experience at the point of sale. But one issue that overarches everything when it comes to influencing how people actually behave is the user experience—or how well things work.

A simple example from my personal life illustrates this point. About a year ago I was called for jury duty. Rather than pay the ridiculous parking rates in downtown Seattle, I decided to use mass transit for the first time. One of the things that kept me in my car for so long was, frankly, my intimidation about learning to use the Metro system. Metro’s web site does offer a trip planner but I found it clunky, difficult to use and not that helpful in making my route visual to me.

And then I found Google Transit.

The Google Transit system uses the exact same data as the King Country Metro trip planner, but the interface is so much more elegant, easier to manipulate, and, critically, blends Metro data with Google’s excellent maps. As a result of using this tool, I overcame my reluctance to use Metro and have become a committed user of mass transit (and this was long before gas nudged near $5 a gallon).

The key idea here is that it wasn’t data that changed my behavior, it was a superior interface. It was a better user experience that got me on the bus. In this example, Metro failed in the last mile (no pun intended) because, despite the massive investment in resources and advertising to increase bus users, they failed to convert me due to my online experience with their brand. Fortunately for them, Google came to their rescue.

The issue of usability is at the core of what makes a truly effective business extranet or consumer web site. Often it’s not the capabilities of the software that define whether a solution will be a success, but how quickly it is embraced by users. Well thought out and implemented user interface and user experience design are key to driving user adoption. Tremendous efficiencies can be gained by automation. Communication can be made much more timely. Prospects can be responded to more quickly and at lower cost. But only if the system is actually used by the people it’s intended to benefit.

So I headed to the KLIIK website. At the homepage, you are asked to select between a Flash or HTML site. No matter which one you select, a popup opens, and this now serves as the website. That is, however, until you select the catalog. This selection opens a new window in the original browser. Talk about bad UX.... To top it off, you can only view 4 of the hundreds of frames they offer unless you have a login and password.

I do not understand the thinking behind this. The entire collection does exist on the website, so no added production work is needed to let the customer browse your entire collection. And, this is not the type of purchase normally made online, so sharing this information would not alienate the dealer. Customers will still need to head to a dealer to try the glasses on, have measurements made, and to place the order.

Consider the money KLIIK spent on the Flash intro on their website - the models, the photo shoot, and the music. Why not spend a little more time thinking about the "Last Mile", and how your customers will want to interact with your product? 

 

 

 Had lunch with a good friend I hadn’t seen in a while and we spent a lot time talking about the Pokémon trading card game. I don’t know a thing about Pokémon, but what “Joe” told me about how the game works posed some interesting questions about the concept of the “wisdom of crowds”.
Joe has been mad for card trading games for years. And while Pokémon is aimed at kids, he’s a serious player and competes in the “senior” category. According to Joe, game play is pretty simple—a player assembles a “deck” and competes in a sort of rock, scissors, paper way. Each year, Pokémon issues a new series of cards and there’s a season ending in an international tournament every year.

Players from all over the world share ideas about strategies and figure out what combinations of cards are the most effective. In other words, they create a global “evolutionary” environment where many, many players are constantly making tweaks and figuring out winning combinations. The result is an unbeatable “super deck” that, if played well, virtually guarantees a winning result.

Joe told me he’s been expecting to meet an individual player who’s better at assembling a deck than he is, and he’s not found one yet. But he can’t beat the super decks. He’s a very smart guy with a strategic mind, but as he said, “I’m not smarter than the internet.”

I asked him, “But where’s the fun, just in the winning? If everybody’s playing the proven performer, where’s the suspense, the fun, of competing?” But he told me there’s a catch. Typically, most of the players that make it to the finals are playing the super deck, but that is often not who wins. Even though “the internet” has created the super deck, it’s often the individual who’s come up with the combination that beats that deck that takes home the trophy.

I think this example has interesting implications for the nature of social networks. There’s no question that a large number of people contributing to finding a solution to a problem can often lead to a really smart solution, a solution that’s “smarter” than you are as an individual. 

But we shouldn’t forget that there is still that potential out there for a scary smart individual to beat the crowd, and do it consistently. To rely only on the wisdom of crowds would be a mistake—whether in investing, research, politics, etc. Potentially, relying on the crowd misses the opportunity for a contrarian or an original thinker to produce a world-beating idea.

Now that social networking technologies are linking more and more “crowds” together, do we risk becoming lazy about challenging assumptions and looking for the best solution? When is it appropriate to challenge the wisdom of a crowd? Is it more efficient to go with the almost best solution to a problem, even if it means sacrificing the very best idea? When should we kick over the conventional wisdom, even when it’s proven to be effective?

Yesterday, Kevin Johnson, president of Microsoft’s platforms and services division announced that the “Live” brand—Microsoft’s flavor of search and online services—could be replaced.  Given the many millions that have been invested by Microsoft, as well as the numerous iterations of “me to” services that have been added to their online offerings over the years, this is a pretty stunning admission. The failure of Live to really catch on and represent a credible threat to Google’s dominance has been cast as a branding problem, but I think there’s a real user experience issue that lives just below the surface. I also believe that without addressing this, any rebranding effort is unlikely to make a real difference.

Consider the development arc of Google as a brand. From the very beginning, that empty field centered on a nearly blank page made it crystal clear what Google was about—search. The fact that Google, as a word, has become synonymous with search in the public’s mind goes to show just how successful they have been. I think that you can attribute quite a lot of the brand’s success to the truly simple and intuitive user experience Google delivers.

Microsoft’s latest gambit to essentially bribe people to use Live search just underscores how much they have to catch up. And I think a part of the problem is the way Microsoft always seems to want more from the user if they want to play with the toys.

Visit windowslive.com, and one thing is clear immediately, you’re going to have to give up a bunch of personal information and allow Microsoft to install a whole bunch of stuff on your computer. Pretty strong contrast with the elegant simplicity and immediate gratification of the Google search field.

I’m confident that Microsoft will develop a successful strategy, which is a good thing. Google needs a credible competitor to keep it sharp, and we all benefit when really smart people compete to come up with innovative new services and products. When they get it right, you’ll know because they won’t have to be paying people to play.

Weber Grills has an army of loyal outdoor chefs that are still cooking on their old charcoal kettles and wouldn't think of buying another brand when it comes time for a new grill. While this may seem like a situation any company would be happy to be in, brands with a diehard user base like Weber are constantly challenged to innovate while not diluting their brand with their existing customer base.

 
To create brand loyalty you must first and foremost build a product that lives up to expectations.

Weber has been building grills from day one that not only cook well, but are designed to last. You won't see too many functioning 10+ year old CharBroil grills out there, but there are plenty of 20+ year old Weber kettle grills with owners proudly grilling away on them. Weber decided to mobilize their user base and take an indirect crack at their competition when they introduced the  Campaign to Promote Grill Decency. As a campaign member, you are delivered informative pamphlets, stickers, and other campaign materials designed to make sure "friends don't let friends buy crappy grills". Members register how many crappy grills they have been able to get converted into Weber’s online, and a worldwide competition is born. Marketing genius!

To sustain brand loyalty you must communicate with your customers and continue to deliver value.

When I registered my three Weber grills with the company I was enrolled as a member of Weber Nation for free. As a member, I am emailed a new recipe each week. The recipes were originally delivered in HTML email format with basic photos. Weber now includes videos of their recipes being prepared by Real Grilling's Jamie Purviance in the emails. A complete, searchable archive of the recipes lives on the Weber Nation website and can be downloaded as podcasts or vodcasts. Now, I am not sure how many pit bosses would be caught getting recipes off an iPod, but that is industry leading innovation! 

Some recent discussions have gotten me thinking about what is and isn't a good use of Flash. I thought I might illustrate what isn't a good use of Flash, as it's a bit easier to nail down. Mind you, some of these "rules" aren't specific to Flash. Some of them are just basic usability and UI. Without further ado, I give you the Flash Commandments:

Thou Shalt Not Get Between The User and Content

Yeah, you with the splash page - I'm looking at you. If you're trying to decide whether to give the user the option to skip anything on your site, you probably need to rethink whether to even have that element at all (Actually, this day and age you should be rethinking your career while your at it). It's obviously not necessary; otherwise why give the user the option to pass by it. Users come to a site to buy products, gather information, and enjoy content. Don't stand in their way. Don't waste their time. That one extra click you put in front of them could be the one that broke the camel's back and sent them back to the search page to look for a site that will give them what they want in a more straight forward way.

Google is Thy Search Engine, Thou Shalt Not Have Navigation Without Keeping It In Mind

Google might know and record the sordid details of your browsing history, but it can't read the contents of your swf. Flash navigation is usually a bad idea. If for some reason you find a good excuse for Flash navigation be smart about it. You can write your navigation as a bulleted list in standard html for instance, just like Google's mysterious algorithms supposedly like it. Then you can parse the navigation data and send  it to Flash via JavaScript, using a tehnique similiar to Mike Davidson's sIFR. This way the user gets the rich Flash experience and Google's spiders get exactly what they're looking for. You'll still want to make sure it degrades gracefully in case the user doesn't have Flash or JavaScript. You'll also want to offer the user the right-click functionality there are used to via Flash's context menu.

Thou Shalt Not Embarass The User

No one wants to unexpectedly announce what page they're looking at to the entire office or library. Don't surprise the user with blasts of sound. Allow the user to choose to hear your content, either with a volume control set automatically to mute, or by requiring them to actively choose to play your content. Exceptions can of course be made, especially in cases like children's sites, but always weigh the consequences. You can never know what type of sound output the user has. "Welcoming" users with loud, blaring noise will see your bounce rate skyrocket.

Honor Thy Father and Mother

This one is a general rule of thumb for all UI, but since Flash developers seem to be more guilty than most about breaking it, I've included it here. Designing a creative and fresh user interface is great, but before you start congratulating yourself for thinking so far outside the box, ask ol' Mom and Dad to give it a spin. Any user interface you design will always be intuitive to you - it better be, you made it. But even if you haven't personally designed it, as someone who lives and breathes the web you're full of thousands of UI assumptions that the average and not-so-average user simply won't see. That's why it's a good idea to sit down with the people that will actually be using your application. Sure, it might be frustrating. But it's even more frustrating to be made to feel dumb and useless by some designer or developer's poorly thought out UI. If the user can't figure out your UI, it's never their fault. It's yours. You're the one that wants them to use your application, after all.

Thou Shalt Take Advantage of Thy Medium

This is the sin of which the now infamous Dilbert.com is most glaringly guilty. For those who don't know, Dilbert raised the ire of the geek-o-sphere when they "updated" their simple and usable UI to a Flash-based kludge. In their example, what reason was there for using Flash that could not have been better filled by other technologies? The developer did not even taken advantage of the most basic of Flash benefits, the stateful nature of the framework. The entire page is reloaded when the user requests the next or previous strip. What's more, the strip is loaded twice each time. First a static .gif is loaded, then the container swf, which then requests the image again. Judging by the load time, the image doesn't appear to cache. So not only is there no benefit gained from choosing Flash, it's actually to the detriment of the experience. The only "advantage" of using Flash that I can see is some over-the-top rollover animations, that I personally find more distracting than engaging. The moral of the story is, use the right tool for the right job. Don't use Flash unless there's a reason to use Flash.

Thou Shalt Separate Thy Content From Thy Presentation

While this rule is obvious to other types of developers, I've met far too many Flash "developers" that don't understand this basic concept. The all too popular notion that Flash pieces are hard to maintain has nothing to do with Flash's capabilities, and everything to do with individual developer and designers' implementations. Arguably, Flash content can be the most dynamic content on the web. Flash can take a great variety of data and asset formats and display them in endless ways. The only limits are the imagination and the laziness of the person building the application. Yet, Flash's reputation as an unmaintainable platform persists thanks largely to designers masquerading as developers. If you're going to call yourself a developer, start acting like one. Keep your data elsewhere, be it images, text, path names, whatever. Over the long run, the major cost of applications isn't in their initial development, but in their maintenance. If you do your job right, you shouldn't ever have to open your authoring files after the project has been delivered.

I'm now finished my first official project using Papervision. Even though there's been the expected learning curve while learning a new library, the project went smoothly. Prototyping and concepting were a breeze. I hit all my deadlines and milestones, with time to spare. The entire project schedule, I compiled, viewed the piece in Firefox, and saw something like this:

So you can imagine my surprise and dismay when, on a Friday afternoon a little before launch, we moved it over to the dev server and the page where it would live and saw this:

Now I've seen some weird behavior between browsers, but never anything like that - and especially not in Flash!

Then things started to get really strange. Trying to get some insight on what might have happened, I decided to check it out in Safari for the Mac. I soon wished I hadn't...

So, after I had a wee little cry, I started combing the Papervision forum over at Nabble. But no one had ever run into a similar problem. The basic gist behind the magic of Papervision - and most 3D libraries for that matter - is that it takes bitmaps and skews them along an imaginary surface using a matrix. I had the cubes in my pieces separated into 12 of these surfaces, two for each side. The first issue was clearly showing a gap where these surfaces were suppose to meet seamlessly, and the second was doing the opposite, only showing the content on the edges themselves. 

Panic was just starting to set in when Pavel, my partner in crime and Pivot and Levy's resident server-side guru, found something. When he changed the background color of the div where the second issue was occurring to black, the issue went away.

"Ok, it's a transparency issue. Now, where have I run into the most issues with transparency?" I said. "Hmm, I bet it's that pesky little attribute, wmode." I replied. Sure enough, I had copied and pasted a embed tag that had declared the wmode as transparent. So, I figured I'd just set it to the default and go about my weekend.

"Not so fast!" said Mr. wmode. That merely balanced out the rendering problem between browsers. Safari now had the milder, although still debilitating, first issue, instead of the mind-blowingly horrific second one. And Firefox and IE now always had it, no matter what color the background. It was progress, at least. Although at the time I didn't know in which direction

So I cried some more. But then I ran through my code some more as well, looked over every object and property, trying to find anything that might affect transparency. I paused over the MovieMaterial objects that I used to take the Flex components behind the app and populate them to surfaces of the cubes. One of the properties of the MovieMaterial Class is "transparency", but I had it set to false. After all, the surfaces of my cubes didn't need transparency, so why ask the player to try and render different opacities. But I was desperate, the same kind of desperate the makes you look for your keys in the freezer, so I switched it to true and pressed the Run button. 

Bam! Eureka! Bug fixed.

There are two morals to this story. One, even cocky Flash developers need to check their apps in other browsers. And two, always set your MovieMaterial to transparent when using the Papervision3D library.