Comments on: User Experience in the Agency World http://www.krotscheck.net/2008/07/04/user-experience-in-the-agency-world.html Michael Krotscheck's insights, ideas, and inspirations about web technology, life, and the kitchen sink. Fri, 03 Feb 2012 05:12:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Andrew Schechterman http://www.krotscheck.net/2008/07/04/user-experience-in-the-agency-world.html/comment-page-1#comment-522 Andrew Schechterman Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:24:00 +0000 http://www.krotscheck.net/2008/07/04/user-experience-in-the-agency-world.html#comment-522 Michael, You're onto something that many still are not, despite the lessons of the dot-com. The quality of the relationship with, and depth of collaboration with the client is paramount. Even the most comprehensive user-centered design method and process, and resulting superior UX, cannot trump an ambivalent or poorly defined client relationship. Taking the time to build the day-to-day working partnership has little to do with our technical, design or craft expertise per se. If we do it well, it usually means many (many) years of happy marriage . . . indeed, when the "parents" are communicating well, the end-users have everything to gain. A lot of psychology, a lot of listening, and the building of trust over time. Have always liked Peter Block's early business books as he had the courage to say that the bulk of our work within one's own company or agency, or with another company or agency, has everything to do with personal skills. I know it initially disappointed his C-level readership, then they got it and pushed his books to the best seller lists. Keep up the great postings, kudos! - AS Michael, You’re onto something that many still are not, despite the lessons of the dot-com. The quality of the relationship with, and depth of collaboration with the client is paramount. Even the most comprehensive user-centered design method and process, and resulting superior UX, cannot trump an ambivalent or poorly defined client relationship. Taking the time to build the day-to-day working partnership has little to do with our technical, design or craft expertise per se. If we do it well, it usually means many (many) years of happy marriage . . . indeed, when the “parents” are communicating well, the end-users have everything to gain. A lot of psychology, a lot of listening, and the building of trust over time. Have always liked Peter Block’s early business books as he had the courage to say that the bulk of our work within one’s own company or agency, or with another company or agency, has everything to do with personal skills. I know it initially disappointed his C-level readership, then they got it and pushed his books to the best seller lists. Keep up the great postings, kudos! – AS

]]> By: Andrea Hill http://www.krotscheck.net/2008/07/04/user-experience-in-the-agency-world.html/comment-page-1#comment-488 Andrea Hill Sat, 05 Jul 2008 05:25:38 +0000 http://www.krotscheck.net/2008/07/04/user-experience-in-the-agency-world.html#comment-488 oh and P.S. 99% of the time the client doesnt know what the user wants, anyway. oh and P.S. 99% of the time the client doesnt know what the user wants, anyway.

]]> By: Andrea Hill http://www.krotscheck.net/2008/07/04/user-experience-in-the-agency-world.html/comment-page-1#comment-487 Andrea Hill Sat, 05 Jul 2008 05:25:03 +0000 http://www.krotscheck.net/2008/07/04/user-experience-in-the-agency-world.html#comment-487 I SOO have to read this book! Although it may make me even more eager to return to the UX space. When I worked at LexisNexis, it was described to me that we were the user's voice at the decision table. You have the business folks, the tech folks, the marketing folks, the PMs.. and who speaks for the user? That's what UX is for. It's really what drives everything I do: when features are considered, I try to think if there are benefits for a user. A major one is authentication or registration for a service. It's fine and dandy to create the functionality, but we have to think of why the user would be motivated to use the feature. You know those services you see (generally butt ugly, but that's beside the fact), and you just know a developer built it? Because there's all sorts of neat-o features he enjoyed building, but they may or may not be useful. It's funny you mention tech leading projects, because actually Jesse James Garrett's diagram of the elements of UX doesn't even include tech... I SOO have to read this book! Although it may make me even more eager to return to the UX space.

When I worked at LexisNexis, it was described to me that we were the user’s voice at the decision table. You have the business folks, the tech folks, the marketing folks, the PMs.. and who speaks for the user? That’s what UX is for.

It’s really what drives everything I do: when features are considered, I try to think if there are benefits for a user. A major one is authentication or registration for a service. It’s fine and dandy to create the functionality, but we have to think of why the user would be motivated to use the feature. You know those services you see (generally butt ugly, but that’s beside the fact), and you just know a developer built it? Because there’s all sorts of neat-o features he enjoyed building, but they may or may not be useful.

It’s funny you mention tech leading projects, because actually Jesse James Garrett’s diagram of the elements of UX doesn’t even include tech…

]]>