Hey, it’s time to argue about hashtags again! The Internet got all revved up about it this week when Daniel Victor published Hashtags considered #harmful:

In most searches, the quantity of tweets is overwhelming and the quality underwhelming. It’s worth questioning how many users find hashtag searches useful, but it’s hard to know, since Twitter doesn’t provide such data.

He goes on to make the argument that most blog posts and tweets about the article focused on:

I believe hashtags are aesthetically damaging. I believe a tweet free of hashtags is more pleasing to the eye, more easily consumed, and thus more likely to be retweeted (which is a proven way of growing your audience)

Sean Sperte followed up with On #hashtags¹:

Hashtags actually do increase engagement. It may be tough to recognize through subjectivity, but the reality is, hashtags provide a mechanism for easier discovery, encourage brevity, promote a single key binding for disparate data, and even help inject tone/personality.

Whatever your personal thoughts on the use of hashtags², it’s worth reminding ourselves that the American Dialect Society voted “hashtag” as the word of the year for 2012. So for a bit of history on our volatile relationship with the thing, have a look at these articles.

Mitch Lasky wrote a very interesting analysis of the gaming industry’s move from packaged goods to digital goods. From EA and the Future:

In my experience, the incumbent packaged goods companies clearly see mobile, digital distribution and free-to-play models as inevitable. They know what’s coming and have known for some time. But within the senior management ranks of these companies there is still a lingering perception that digital doesn’t, in their words, “move the needle” sufficiently — meaning that the revenue generated from existing console franchises still far exceeds the revenue that can be generated, even in aggregate, on new platforms and through new business models.

Mitch goes on to show how this thinking is wrong, and then explains how being caught between the promise of new consoles and the possibilities of digital revenue puts game manufacturers in a situation where they’ll have to make some very tough strategic decisions.

(link via @hunterwalk)

In How the internet is making us poor Christopher Mims asks a chilling question about what he calls the “hollowing out of the middle class” — the phenomenon where knowledge workers are being replaced by computers:

Like farming and factory work before it, the labors of the mind are being colonized by devices and systems. In the early 1800′s, nine out of ten Americans worked in agriculture—now it’s around 2%. At its peak, about a third of the US population was employed in manufacturing—now it’s less than 10%. How many decades until the figures are similar for the information-processing tasks that typify rich countries’ post-industrial economies?

The article also quotes this thought-provoking statement from Marc Andreessen:

The spread of computers and the Internet will put jobs in two categories: People who tell computers what to do, and people who are told by computers what to do.

It might seem like the usual doom-and-gloom “technology will kill as all” refrain, but the article reviews some very interesting historical (and current) data, so it’s worth checking out.

Our beloved industry is pretty wary of buzz words. And by “our industry” I mean User Experience Designers — although we can’t even agree on what to call ourselves, so that’s another problem, I guess. Anyway. Debates over terms like skeuomorphism, flat design, and “No UI” have given us a strong skepticism for fancy words. That’s mostly refreshing, but it can also be a handicap if we end up dismissing valuable ideas because we don’t like the terms that describe those ideas.

I would argue that the term Lean UX fits into this last category. It’s easy to dismiss as just another bandwagon fad, but now that I’ve read through Jeff Gothelf and Josh Seiden’s Lean UX: Applying Lean Principles to Improve User Experience I believe that it’s a valuable framework to help us understand where the UX industry is headed — and how to do our jobs better.

Whether you want to call the theory and techniques discussed in this book “Lean” or just “How we work” doesn’t matter as much, in my opinion. What is important is that we understand the benefits of moving towards a more iterative, outcomes-based design approach, while letting go of some our reliance on classic design deliverables. In the introduction to the book, the authors sum up the main reason for this proposed change in design approach:

But the fault is not with the designers, or the engineers, or even the executives. The problem is the systems we use to build companies. We are still building linear organizations in a world that demands constant change. We are still building silos in a world that demands thorough collaboration. And we are still investing in analysis, arguing over specifications, and efficiently producing deliverables in a world that demands continuous experimentation in order to achieve continuous innovation.

The book then describes how to build better products through real collaboration. I say real because Jeff and Josh don’t just say, “you should work together!” They detail a number of practical techniques for working together better, as well as case studies to show how it works in real-world situations. And underlying all of this are the three principles of what they define as Lean UX:

• Removing waste from the design process to move away from heavily documented handoffs to a process that creates only the design artifacts needed to move the team’s learning forward.
• Improving the efficiency of the “system” of designers, developers, product managers, quality assurance engineers, marketers, and others in a transparent, cross-functional collaboration that brings nondesigners into the design process.
• Shifting mindsets away from relying on “hero designers” to divine the best solution from a single point of view, in favor of using rapid experimentation and measurement to learn quickly how well (or not) ideas meet the company’s goals.

Some UX designers will read this book and say that this is how they’ve always worked. That might be true — it’s true for our agency as well, to some extent. But I still found it extremely helpful to have a concrete framework for the work we do, combined with solid reasoning about the benefits of this approach. I also picked up some great execution ideas for techniques we use already — like persona templates and design studio facilitation.

The only part of the book that might be a bit controversial is the discussion of how Lean UX fits into Agile development. Jeff and Josh argue that the long-accepted idea of Sprint 0 or Staggered Sprints (making sure that design is always a sprint ahead of development) doesn’t work long-term:

However, this model works best as a transition. It is not where you want your team to end up. Here’s why: it becomes very easy to create a situation in which the entire team is never working on the same thing at the same time. You never realize the benefits of cross-functional collaboration because the different disciplines are focused on different things. Without that collaboration, you don’t build shared understanding, so you end up relying heavily on documentation and handoffs for communication.

They propose a very interesting alternative that makes a lot of sense (I won’t spoil it for you), but some of the concerns I’ve raised before about Agile UX remains. I’m not sure if any Agile UX techniques allow for enough leeway to test/research different variations of a product idea, or if it just streamlines the iteration process to get you to a local maximum faster.

In summary, Lean UX is a great overview of what an effective UX process should look like. There’s a good balance between theory, practical advice, and case studies. This makes it a valuable resource for those new to the field, but it also gives experienced UX practitioners a framework to structure and communicate the work they do every day. Highly recommended.

Buy Lean UX on Amazon.

Willa Paskin wrote a really interesting article for Wired about the future of television. The most interesting parts of Netflix Resurrected Arrested Development. Next Up: Television Itself are about the rise of “binge-watching” — the behavior of churning through multiple episodes at a time in one sitting. Netflix found that designing shows to allow for binge-watching is good business:

The more that ­people binge-watch, the more attached they become to the show. “Binge-watching is a behavior that really started for us back in the DVD days. The way ­people were returning the discs, they weren’t watching one a night or one a week,” Sarandos says. “As we got into the streaming business, it became more trackable. What we saw was that the ­people who did this were much more attached to the shows. And because they were more attached to the shows, they reported more value in watching them on Netflix.” In other words, the more you binge, the better for Netflix.

This is why Netflix released all 13 episodes of House of Cards at once, and why those who say it was a stupid decision will likely be proven wrong.

I’d like to thank Wufoo for sponsoring the Elezea RSS feed this week. I use Wufoo as the contact form on Elezea, and it works great.

Wufoo? Who? It’s a web application that lets you build amazing online forms for your websites.

We host everything. We build the backend. You get an easy, fun and fast way to collect and analyze data, and it even integrates with many payment systems.

With Wufoo you get…

• Over 200 pre-made templates & themes from our form gallery
• Ability to customize branding with your own logo and themes to match
• Integration with over 50 web apps including WordPress, MailChimp, Basecamp, Stripe, etc.
• Support for beautiful typography with custom fonts and Typekit integration

Just because you’re working with forms and data doesn’t mean you have to do it without personality or style. Gathering information from your users is exciting, why shouldn’t your tools be exciting too?

Experience the difference. Sign up for Free and get started with Wufoo today.

Sponsorship by The Syndicate

Mark Boulton wrote a forceful counter-argument to the common mantra that collaboration results in better design. From Quietly working:

I see plenty of banner waving for collaborative working. Co-designing, pair programming, brainstorming, collaborative workshops. The overwhelming message is that these tools are better for reaching consensus, sharing work, and, ultimately, lead to better work. Well, I’m not so sure that’s the truth. Given my introverted nature, sometimes these activities can rush the process too much. They allow no time for me to think. […]

Personally speaking, a lot of the time, I’d rather listen to what you have to say and go and have a good think.

Mark makes some very good points, and as an introvert myself, his message really resonates with me. But I don’t think it’s an either/or situation. It’s not that we either collaborate, or work alone. Collaboration that doesn’t allow time and space for working alone is ineffective collaboration.

There are two illustrations about the collaboration process that summarize this idea well. The first is from Trent Walton’s Being Prepared To Contribute:

An idea, followed by discussion, often results in better ideas. But the “Better idea” step doesn’t happen in a meeting room — it happens at the designer’s desk, when they have time to reflect and focus on the problem without interruption.

The second illustration is from Stefan Klocek’s excellent post Better together; the practice of successful creative collaboration:

It shows how collaboration doesn’t mean that everyone should do everything together. Important decisions are made together, but the production details (the “better ideas”) happen while working alone.

So I’m definitely with Mark on his call for having more time to think and work alone. But that isn’t an alternative to collaborative working. It’s just a necessary — and too often ignored — part of the collaboration process.

(link via @ChrisFerdinandi)

Jared Spool looks at different redesign strategies in Extraordinarily Radical Redesign Strategies. Whenever time and budget allow it, I believe the “realign” strategy — what Jared calls “The Glacial-Speed Approach” — works best. This strategy relies on continuous, incremental change to reach your site goals:

The beauty of making small changes means that you never have high risk. A menu item here, a new form field there. Slowly the interface morphs, and if you make a mistake, well, you change it back.

But here’s the kicker — the reality that makes most product teams opt for a different strategy:

This type of redesign takes patience. It also takes humility, especially from those organizations who think people want to hear that they’ve made it better. Unfortunately, to most people, those proclamations sound like the web equivalent of “Our menus have changed so please listen carefully.”

To pull this off, the team needs a solid vision of where the design should eventually go. Then, one small change at a time, they start. Make the change and watch what happens, proceeding slowly to the next. The team will know it’s succeeded when they hear a user insist that a new addition has been in the design all along.

Patience isn’t a word most people would use to describe their leadership teams when it comes to site redesigns. But the reality is that most other strategies involve much higher risks than the internal frustration of waiting a few extra months using the realignment approach. Risks like losing the majority of your customer base to a competitor (as Digg found out the hard way).

Read Jared’s article for a good overview of the pros and cons of different redesign strategies.