Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

Simplicity, Not So Simple: Embracing Deep Gradual Engagement

Making an experience simple doesn’t have to be about reducing complexity for the users; it’s about attempting to stay within what the users are initially capable of managing, and providing them increasing options as their familiarity increases. The user experience field has matured enough to recognize what those user states are across applications, devices, and even environments, but is just scratching the surface when it comes to taking advantage of the users’ evolution within applications and websites.

Classic Persona Modeling Is Only a First Step

Persona development has enabled UX to take a more human-centered approach to building a website and meeting the largest percentage of users’ needs. While this works for simple sites with little depth, a more complex site requires a more complex approach to identifying and facilitating users’ needs. Personas are a necessary step in our process, but can now branch out to match users’ needs, as users become more advanced in their interactions. For a very long time, technology limited presentation to anonymous users and, perhaps, alternate states with different and additional content once a user voluntarily authenticated with a username, tying the session to a specific identity.

In recent years, the Internet changed; it became more complex by degrees. The hardware and infrastructure became more sophisticated. Sites today have access to more information, in real time, about the browsing session, without violating the privacy of individual users. Sites have discrete access to social infrastructures when explicitly provided by the user. Sites can receive data from third-party sources, by user permission, and respond to information that never has to be accessed or stored by the site providing the interface.

Instead of the simple model of “click, request, respond,” there is now a complex series of options and possibilities; a tangled and complicated journey with every click, previously limited by users’ ability to use the technology. Conversely, as designers, we tend to limit users by what we offer them. There are still some who assume that sites should be built to the least common denominator throughout, instead of just initially, and in treating every user as if they have a sixth grade reading level, an introductory understanding of computers, and the attention span of a gnat.

The users of the Internet have become more familiar with standard web browsing techniques and user interfaces. Some of them started to trust the websites they used. And some of them got really good at using them. So good that they are often able to learn faster ways of using websites and inform designers how to better design. Those users are ready for additional functionality and have the current capacity to learn new methods associated with using it.

Parallels to Progressive Disclosure

This idea isn’t new; designers practice progressive disclosure, based on interface restrictions and/or amount of data, relative to the needs of the user. Edward Tufte’s visualization theories have allowed designers to explore this concept, through the lens of partitioning information, presenting it in pieces that create a new whole to assist users in better understanding interfaces. Typically, this disclosure state is made based on a single set of user requirements and rarely revisited for those users who are engaged with the interface at deeper levels. By taking the feedback gathered from that initially identified user state, an interface is engineered that presents just the right amount of information within each set of choices, being careful not to exceed users’ ability to comfortably make a decision.

Louis Rosenfeld expanded on this concept with a blog post in which he compared users’ capacitive levels to an onion. On the surface, the initial disclosures hold true. As the layers of the onion are peeled, the number of users diminishes, but they become more skilled, engaged, and trusting of the interfaces they’re interacting with, along different segments of their journey. This model allows for a quick, simple overview of how you can segment users into more complex personas that allow you to respond to multiple sets of needs.

The fear of a user struggling with the way forward can create an unintended over-simplification of interfaces. Opportunities are missed by remaining on the outer peel of the onion. It’s easy to identify a user who has been to a website seven times in a month. Once a user has been to a website multiple times, it becomes likely that more of your interface has become resident in their long-term memory. You can then offer additional content, helpful to a more advanced user; you can provide shorter ways of navigating sets of functionality, previously complex to the user’s novice state. Recognizing and emphasizing the facets of your site that will have become a part of long-term memory will allow you to avoid potential information overload.

Target.com provides a good example of this with their latest website. Upon initially visiting the site, you’re presented with essential navigation and promotional material. However, after browsing through several products, a new widget appears in the bottom-left of the pages, granting you quick, easier access to previously viewed products. They do this based on a cookie, without logging you in. While the feature itself is simple, the revelation of that feature matches the user state in that the user is continuing to shop, or is a return visitor, and thus, a more engaged user than the first-time visitor who has no need for an empty “previously viewed” container.

Examples of Moving from Simple to Complex

Math is taught to varying degrees from grade school through post-education. The core principles need to be taught and become rote before advanced, complex math can be introduced. Children must learn addition before subtraction; those both before multiplication, then algebra, geometry, and trigonometry, on through calculus and beyond. Algebra is possible because the tenets of more basic math have become embedded in long-term memory.

Video game developers have noticed this and have shaped their games accordingly, with increasingly complex stories and parallel learning tracks. With early video games, such as Super Mario Brothers, the system of control and interface was fairly simple, as was the game. Once you learned the controls for the first level, you could viably skip directly to the last level and still succeed, provided you could keep up with the number of factors, but the interface remained the same. In more recent years, complex games such as Spore and World of Warcraft require the player to learn and store interface controls within long-term memory, to allow the constant introduction of new abilities, techniques, and controls. A first-level player of World of Warcraft suddenly exposed to an end-game level interface would not be well-equipped for success, having missed exposure to over one hundred required in-game lessons.

The Case for Advanced Features

Users carry different levels of commitment, training, and trust, based on where they are in a given process. They may have goals; they may have a required task. They may not. Regardless of their intent, their level of familiarity extends to how they proceed with matching what they perceive as needs. With greater familiarity comes trust in the system to do what they expect it to when they perform actions (see Figure 1). With that trust and familiarity comes the desire for additional, advanced features. Requirements for experiences should be able to match this cycle of needs.

Table 1. Parallels Between Trust Achieved and Time Commitment
Users can be plotted along the parallels between trust gained and time committed.
Asking for Information (Gradual Engagement)Providing Information (Progressive Disclosure)
1. InitializedPassive. One size fits all, choice theory observed. What can be assumed for all users?Categorical. What do you need to do (A), or (B), or (C), or (D)
2. Re-VisitedSearch.
Direct relation to request. What are you looking for?
Topical.
Having selected (B) before, are you interested in topic (1), or (2), or (3), on in going back to Category?
3. EngagedPersonally Identifiable.
First Hane, Last Name, Email, or Phone.
How can I help you, Jane Doe?
Details.
Having reviewed the components of (B), (1), (2), (3), here is additional information about (B) as (4) and (5).
4. Re-EngagedPatterns in site engagement.
Confirmed through multiple contact points.
How was your experience? What can we do for you today?
Multiple Levels.
Here is the most recent information about (B>, (6) and (7), and also information within (C) that closely relates.
5. CommittedTrust.
Personal planning, storage of information.
We can offer you (x), based on what you’ve been working on. Are you interested?
Deep Levels.
Having explored (A), (B), and (C);, here is the information you’ve found most relevant, and any pertinent supporting information.

Experienced users, engaged at a deep level, are looking for a quicker, more efficient way to do introductory tasks while adding the ability to do additional work to their stable of rote tasks. By modeling out the levels at which users engage, and by identifying how their needs change or expand as they become more engaged, you can take a design approach that can gradually become more complex, allowing for more advanced features. Appropriately complex interfaces allow for richer, greater functionality and expanded capabilities.

When to Use Deep Gradual Engagement

The ideas of gradual engagement, progressive disclosure, and simplification are inextricably linked. The role of the UX practitioner is to understand the engagement levels of the users and know when it’s appropriate to reveal functionality to them.

Much of this comes from work that UX practitioners already do: Who are your users? What does the business want them to do? How will the users respond along the way? This is traditionally and generally all that needs to be defined for simple projects. But not every project is simple.

There’s a greater level of granularity available regarding users that can be written and designed to. The key is to understand how many levels of information you have for your own functionality and how engaged you will be able to keep your users. Exposing information or functionality as users need it can be daunting and dangerous if done incorrectly. Remembering to still provide intuitive access to unrevealed features is paramount.

Luke Wroblewski illustrated gradual engagement as a sign-up strategy, clearly articulating the gains Twitter benefitted from once they adopted it. By not leaving users to their own devices once they had signed up, and by stepping them through the process of how to successfully use the application, there was a 29 percent increase in use conversion.

Once you’ve determined that your system is complex enough that it requires a deep engagement strategy, the creation of a User States Grid can help you begin to understand your users and the opportunities you have (see Figure 2). The key information to collect for a User States Grid includes the following:

  • User Levels. These can start as arbitrary labels; you will get a better idea for them as you complete your research.
  • Trust Level. This is the level of trust the user has in the brand, site, or system.
  • Technical Recognition. Factors that are part of the site or system that allow you to associate a binary identifier with the particular user level.
  • User Data. The type of data that is known and/or stored about the user.
  • Exposed Functionality. The associated functionality with a given user level.
  • Conversion Impetus. The factor that gives the user a reason to move to the next engagement level.
Table 2. An Example of a Deep Engagement Strategy
The grid is a starting-point example of how users can be plotted to determine how they best align to a deep engagement strategy for your website or system. Additional user levels can be identified and added, as appropriate, to a given project
Trust LevelTechnical RecognitionUser DataExposed FunctionalityConversion Impetus
1. InitiatizedLowNoneNonePrimary Navigation CuesDiscovering Product
2. Re-VisitedLow-MediumCookiesBrowse History via CookiesAdditional History FeaturesPurchasing Product
3. EngagedMediumRegistered and First-Time AuthenticationFirst Name, Last Name, Email Address, Password (encrypted)Recommended Products Based on HistoryHome Improvement Purchase Information Access
4. Re-EngagedMedium-HighReturn AuthenticationEncrypted Purchase Info, Additional PII InfoRecommended Products Based on PurchasesHome Improvement Project Planning Access
5. CommittedHighAuthentication after Multiple InteractionsPersonalized Home Information, Family InformationRecommended Products Based on Home InformationN/A

The level of complexity regarding your gradual engagement strategy will be dependent on how detailed you and your organization or your client want it to be. It can be an initial engagement, to better teach users the value of your site, or it can be a prolonged strategy, to continue the education and benefits available to your users for their entire lifetime use of your site.

At Lowe’s, we’ve adopted this strategy for how we release our MyLowe’s home management platform. Initially, we were able to plant a set of tools in the hands of our users and provide them a meaningful system to react to. We’ve come to realize, however, that by walking them through various steps of the journey, responding to the amount of information they’re willing to provide, and giving them tools and interactions commensurate to their level of understanding of our system, we provide them with a more engaging experience that we can continue throughout the entire lifecycle of the user being a Lowe’s customer. We can grow with them.

As an example, when we initially released our “Save Item” feature, we provided users the ability to save directly into any one of multiple, pre-defined favorite lists or pre-defined rooms. Additionally, the users could actually create a new room or a new list from within this area. We discovered that many users were confused when they initially interacted with this feature, lacking the context of use provided by the tools they were referencing. As a result, we reoriented our strategy to provide only the most basic level of save functionality, later increasing it once the user had interacted with the referenced tools. While this is one small example, this is the level of scrutiny we apply to each feature as we generate experiences that evolve with our users.

Putting aside conventional notions of what the web was, and moving into a new era of developing interfaces appropriate for multiple levels of engagement will help strengthen the very foundation of the anticipated experience. Our users have complex and varying needs. We have the technology to serve those needs. Until now, we haven’t taken advantage of it. By identifying who the users are, throughout the lifetime of their engagement with our interface, we are able to better serve their needs. We can evolve not just how we present information to our users, but enhance our ability to efficiently serve advanced users. Doing this without hindering our ability to bring novices into our site enables us to produce the most positive experience possible for all of our users.UX简化并不是很容易的事。从根本上讲,在体验设计方面简单是件好事,但通常是有代价的。例如,在流程或代码中需要一些复杂的内容来让用户界面变得简单。角色开发方法使得用户体验团队能够以更加以人为本的方式构建网站和最大程度地满足用户需求。这个方法适用于深度较小的简单网站,而更加复杂的网站则需要以更加复杂的方法来识别和满足用户需求。

根据在具体流程中所处的位置,用户有不同程度的参与、学习、信任和需求。对于系统的要求必须能够满足这些需求。通过对不同程度的用户参与进行建模,并确定随着参与程度的加深用户需求如何变化和扩展,就可以采用一种能够逐渐增加复杂度的设计方法。适当复杂的界面可提供更丰富的功能和更大的处理能力。

The full article is available only in English.단순화 그리 단순하지 않습니다. 근본적으로 단순함은 디자인 경험을 위한 경우에는 긍정적이지만, 프로세스에 어떤 복잡한 요소가 있으면 사용자 인터페이스가 간단할 수 있도록 하는 코드가 필요하다는 것과 같은 한 예와 같이 보통 어떤 균형의 관계가 있습니다. 페르소나 개발은 UX가 웹사이트 구축을 위한 더 인간 중심적인 접근법을 선택하고 사용자 요구의 매우 큰 부분을 충족할 수 있게 하였습니다. 이것이 복잡하지 않은 단순한 사이트 경우에는 해당되지만, 더욱 복잡한 사이트는 사용자 요구를 식별하고 충족하기 위해 더 복합적인 접근법이 필요합니다.

사용자들은 그들이 주어진 과정의 어느 지점에 있는지를 바탕으로 여러 수준의 참여도, 훈련, 신뢰 및 요구 사항을 갖고 있습니다. 시스템 요구 사항은 이러한 요구도 충족할 수 있어야 합니다. 사용자 참여도 수준을 모형화하고, 그들의 참여도가 높아지면서 그들의 요구 사항이 어떻게 변화 또는 확장하는지 식별함으로써 점진적으로 더욱 복합적으로 될 수 있는 디자인 접근법을 선택할 수 있습니다. 적절하게 복합적인 인터페이스는 더욱 풍부한 기능과 확장된 능력을 허용합니다.

The full article is available only in English.Por exemplo, algo complexo no processo ou no código é necessário para permitir que a interface com o usuário seja simples. O desenvolvimento de personas permitiu à experiência do usuário adotar uma abordagem mais centrada nas pessoas para criar um site e atender a um percentual maior de necessidades dos usuários. Embora isso funcione para sites simples, com pouca profundidade, um site mais complexo requer uma abordagem mais complexa para identificar e facilitar as necessidades do usuário.

Os usuários possuem diferentes níveis de comprometimento, treinamento, confiança e exigências, com base em onde estão em um determinado processo. Os requisitos dos sistemas devem poder atender a essas necessidades. Ao modelar os níveis nos quais os usuários estão envolvidos e identificar como suas necessidades mudam ou se expandem à medida que se tornam mais envolvidos, podemos adotar uma abordagem de projeto que pode gradualmente se tornar mais complexo. Interfaces adequadamente complexas permitem uma funcionalidade mais rica e capacidades expandidas.

O artigo completo está disponível somente em inglês.簡素化はそう単純なことではない。根本的には、エクスペリエンスデザインにおいてシンプルなのは良いことだが、通常なんらかのトレードオフがある。たとえば、ユーザインターフェイスをシンプルにするためには、操作プロセスやコードで何かを複雑にする必要がある。ペルソナ開発のおかげで、ウェブサイトの構築においてUXはさらに人間中心設計的なアプローチを採り、最多数のユーザのニーズを満たすことができるようになった。余り奥深くない簡単なサイトではこの方法で良いが、さらに複雑なサイトの場合にはより込み入ったアプローチを用いて、ユーザニーズを特定しデザインに反映する必要がある。

ユーザは、どのような状況にいるかによって、異なるレベルのコミットメント、トレーニング、信頼感、要求を持っている。システム要件はこうしたユーザニーズにマッチしたものであるべきだ。ユーザが関与するレベルをモデル化し、その関与度の深まりにつれてニーズがどのように変化したり拡大したりするかを見極めることで、段階的に複雑化するデザインアプローチを取ることができる。適切な複雑さを備えたインタフェースではさらに豊かな機能を搭載し性能を向上させることが可能となる。

The full article is available only in EnglishPor ejemplo, algo complejo en el proceso o en el código permite que una interfaz de usuario sea simple. El desarrollo de personas ha permitido que la UX adopte un enfoque más centrado en el ser humano a la hora de crear un sitio web que satisfaga la mayor cantidad de necesidades de los usuarios. Si bien esto funciona para los sitios simples, con escasa profundidad, un sitio más complejo requiere un enfoque más complejo para identificar y facilitar las necesidades del usuario.

Dependiendo de dónde se encuentren en un proceso determinado, los usuarios tienen diferentes niveles de participación, capacitación, confianza y requerimientos. Los requerimientos del sistema deben ser capaces de concordar con esas necesidades. Al modelar los niveles donde los usuarios participan e identificar cómo cambian y se expanden sus necesidades a medida que se van involucrando más, es posible adoptar un enfoque al diseño que pueda ser cada vez más complejo. Las interfaces complejas dan lugar a funcionalidades más ricas y capacidades ampliadas.

La versión completa de este artículo está sólo disponible en inglés.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.