Designing For Purpose

Designing for Purpose

Applying Perceptual control theory (PCT) to better know, empower, and engage users

Alex O’NealUX strategist/architect

A. O’Neal, Designing for Purpose 2

Under discussion What is Perceptual Control Theory? PCT and user experience Looking at experience from the inside out

User-driven perceptual input Standard user “empowerment” IRL (in real life) interaction Empowerment correlated with loyalty

Designing for purpose Distraction-based design Successful networks support goals Revealing purpose Testing for purpose

User experience design as a contract References About this presentation


What is Perceptual Control Theory?

*www.perceptualcontroltheory.org

Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) steps away from treating people as subjects in a stimulus-response scenario, and focuses instead on how pre-conceptions and personal needs motivate perception and behavior.

PCT focuses on how we look at and experience things, and the way these perceptions are compared with experiences we want. The difference produces action and physiology. Thus PCT explains how thoughts become actions, feelings and results, and its principles can be applied to any activity involving human experience.*

Applied to UX, PCT assumes that user behavior is goal-driven, and seeks to find and leverage goals to increase engagement and usefulness.


PCT and user experiencePCT assumes that human behavior is purposeful, not simple stimulus-response.

*www.perceptualcontroltheory.org

Organisms do not produce behavior by computing output. Instead, they produce behavior by comparing inputs with desired inputs, and using the difference to drive output.*

Let’s replace “input” with “experience.”

Organisms do not produce behavior by computing output. Instead, they produce behavior by comparing [experience] with desired [experience], and using the difference to drive output.*

In other words, humans are active, goal-driven participants in their experience.

UX design should seek to understand and leverage user goals to increase engagement and usefulness.


Looking from the inside out

User-driven perceptual input Standard user “empowerment” IRL (in real life) interaction Empowerment correlated with loyalty


User-driven perceptual input

*www.thenetworkthinker.com

From Valdis Krebs, social network guru. Krebs based this on Amazon book purchases combined with “also bought”

data to demonstrate political polarization. I offer it as a prime example of how humans control our own perceptual input/ personal experience.

2004

2008*


In most content control systems, the user is seen as the smallest piece in an ever-widening system.

Standard design tactics include:• Friending (trusting)• Blocking• Following• Privacy levels:

•Private (self only)•Sharing with friends•Sharing with site members •Sharing with the public

In most content control systems, the user is seen as the smallest piece in an ever-widening system.

Standard design tactics include:• Friending (trusting)• Blocking• Following• Privacy levels:

•Private (self only)•Sharing with friends•Sharing with site members •Sharing with the public

Standard user “empowerment”Most user empowerment appears in:

Content privacy and sharingProfile appearance (skins, etc.)

Private/Self

Friends/Connections

Site members (optional)

Public


For the user, personal experience is the world. Behavior comes from constant, underlying analysis of immediate needs and the ongoing goal of optimizing perceptual input. For example:•Trust and sharing behavior varies among individuals, even in the same activity (work, play).

•Trust often occurs out of need, not closeness (e.g., doctors)•Trusted, close friends may not get a share due to purpose considerations (e.g., not sharing insider work data)

•Even among close friends and family, purpose drives what we choose to share.

For the user, personal experience is the world. Behavior comes from constant, underlying analysis of immediate needs and the ongoing goal of optimizing perceptual input. For example:•Trust and sharing behavior varies among individuals, even in the same activity (work, play).

•Trust often occurs out of need, not closeness (e.g., doctors)•Trusted, close friends may not get a share due to purpose considerations (e.g., not sharing insider work data)

•Even among close friends and family, purpose drives what we choose to share.

IRL interaction

Coworkers

Trusted acquaintances (e.g., doctors)

Professional network

Family

PrivateSelf

Closefriends

PURPO

SENEED

In real life, a balance of purpose and need drives information sharing.

Self


Empowerment correlated with loyaltyTwo major social networks greatly empower their users’

control of experience; not surprisingly, both have high user loyalty.

Facebook Offers custom friend lists since Dec. 2007. Enhanced customizable friend viewing, May 2009. Highly personalized content & activities via apps.

LiveJournal Offers custom friend groups (since at least 2003) and

friend filters based on those groups. Offers customizable themes. Is steadily increasing in traffic (4.7 million unique

visitors in July 2009 compared to 3.9 million in July 2008*).

*www.compete.com


Designing for purpose

Distraction-based design Successful networks support goals Revealing purpose Testing for purpose


Distraction-based design

Much of design is based not on what users want to do on the page, but on what we want them to do next. Don’t miss the forest for the trees!Advertising, snipes, marketingPromoted contentContent pages designed more like portals

Can we actually distract users? Do we want to?

Can users realize perceptual goals via online networks? Find out on the next slide!


Successful networks support goals

Facebook

Twitter

LinkedIn

MySpace

Slashdot

Google Groups

LiveJournal

Dating sites

Social validation, networking

Participating in the moment, being in the know

Professional networking, career management

Identity development, facade experimentation

Discussion around shared interest, ego validation

Browse, learn and share knowledge

Personal expression with well-managed groups

Matchmaking, romantic self-validation


Revealing purposePCT can be useful in understanding your users’

perspective via web analytics. Survey, observe, and watch for reveals (purpose-displaying behavior). Good places to start:

Study traffic flow, incoming and on-site Analyze internal search keywords and

tagging to understand your users’ personal taxonomies. (Remember, taxonomy is context!)

Conduct surveys Study patterns of behavior

Remember that most users arrive with a goal, but some are more aware than others.


Testing for purpose

Concept and site testing can also be improved by applying PCT principles.

Break away from stimulus-response testing design.

Actions speak louder than words. Weight behavior over self-reported opinion in analysis.

Empower your test subjects. Start your testing a step in advance of the

page/site/application you are testing.


Remember that user experience is a contract between you and the user.

Analyze and test for purpose Empower your users Within the context of your business, make

your goals meet your user’s goals

Now what?

My experience is what I agree to attend to. –William James


References

www.perceptualcontroltheory.org/overview.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_control_theory

www.designingsocialpatterns.com

www.thenetworkthinker.com

www.compete.com


About this presentation

This deck is the original work of Alex O’Neal, and does not include any material specific to any previous or current employer. Research comes from non-employer sources (see References slide).

The customized template and photographs are the original work of Alex O’Neal.

Alex (that’s me!) is a user experience designer with a summa cum laude degree in psychology, over eleven years of web design experience (IA, usability, strategy, and search), and online taxonomy & metadata experience as far back as 1991.

Designing For Purpose

Documents

Transcript of Designing For Purpose