Input please? Draft chapter on integrating UX and WA
Marko and I just wrapped up a draft of our book's third chapter; you can download the PDF here (703Kb). We'd love your feedback on it, ideally in comments shared in this blog entry.
So you have a little context: this is the book's third chapter. The first chapter is a case study, based on John Ferrara's wonderful work at Vanguard, that demonstrates the value of site search analytics. The second chapter is an introduction to the topic. So we've introduced the topic by both showing and explaining how it works, and making a case for its value to both web analytics (WA) and user experience (UX) people alike.
This third chapter steps back a bit to explore the connection between WA and UX, and how both of these areas are incomplete forms of user research. After reading it, we hope you walk away with a better and more concrete sense of how they can fit together, as well as a rationale for why they should. We wrap up the chapter by discussing how site search analytics (SSA) is a beachhead for bringing these practices together.
So this third chapter provides something of a Big Picture for where site search analytics might fit within an organization and, more importantly, how SSA's "parents"—web analytics and user experience design—could be improved through combining forces.
The remainder of the book are chapters that get into the nuts and bolts of actually analyzing site search data, and user experience "hacks" based on examples from many organizations that are using and benefiting from SSA.
OK, here you go; feedback please!
Comments
Great subject; very timely! You took an interesting approach to introducing SSA through both worlds: those of web analytics and user experience. The chapter has the feel of a first chapter to me, though, with a hook at the end designed to help readers understand why SSA matters.
Because the journalist in me never quits, the only thing that made me react a bit was the term "bottom line it." Have we verbified "bottom line" now?
Posted by: Josie | October 28, 2009 10:06 AM
Just skimming right now and mostly liking it. I have one big and one small suggestion:
+ I think most of page 3 is unnecessary and repetitive. A summary, the table, and a couple of reasonably vivid examples (preferably quite relevant to the topic) would be enough.
+ page 3: I recommend not using WA instead of Web Analyst -- it seems unnecessarily jargonish here.
Posted by: Avi Rappoport | October 28, 2009 1:00 PM
Josie: bottom line is that I'm not sure. ;-)
Avi: good points, though is "Web Analyst" definitely the right term for someone who professionally performs Web Analytics?
Note to self: in the section where we get into what senior leaders should know, be sure to emphasize that they need these areas to come together so that they can do two things: 1) benchmark, measure, monitor, and optimize (no surprise here); and 2) learn about changes in the environment (i.e., identify trends and surprises that come from changes in all the variables--user, content, and business context--that take place on a regular basis).
Posted by: Lou | November 1, 2009 7:55 AM
Hmm... Another area to consider squeezing in here might be a discussion of how to map KPI and search-related metrics. Can't remember if we're doing that somewhere else already.
Posted by: Lou | November 2, 2009 8:03 AM
Whoops, what I meant was, use the full title (Web Analyst) instead of the abbreviation (WA).
Posted by: Avi Rappoport | November 2, 2009 3:22 PM
By its nature, a book about analytics might be skewed toward the analytical. So it's important to dwell for a moment on the creative.
If Doug Bowman is going to epitomize the clash, then perhaps a soft piece on Doug Bowman the human and Doug Bowman the designer would illuminate the creative side. What are his methods, what are his expectations when entering a conversation, what are his intentions and goals? How did this work out at Google?
During that narrative, the contrast between analytic and synthetic can be identified and partly explained. Then the point of view can be introduced that they are complementary. That leads to the discipline: the practitioner's task is to integrate these complementary points of view.
Posted by: Bruce Esrig | November 3, 2009 7:13 AM
Here is a mechanical problem, "Here's an interesting headline..."
Well, it isn't interesting, because I have no idea why I am supposed to care. Don't tell me it is interesting, make it interesting.
Actually, I don't get the first few pages. The meat starts on page five with Example #1. Work backwards from the examples, decide what you are demonstrating, and make an intro paragraph.
My take on this? UX has developed folklore because data is so damned hard to get. Do what you can with data, but understand you will never have enough unless you are at one of the 100 biggest sites on the net. Even at Netflix, it took two months of full query logs to get enough data to decide some problems. Not a test cell, every single query for two months. 25 million queries.
When you can't use deduction, use induction. When you don't have that, use intuition. But realize what you are doing.
Posted by: Walter Underwood | November 5, 2009 1:34 AM
Lou, this is an interesting chapter topic. I was surprised that it was part of your book, and I have been convinced that it is needed because the "problem" is a human one. Here are my recommendations:
1. Emphasize at the start that this chapter is about getting humans to reach out to each other across borders we've already established. Person-to-person. Love that reference!
2. (this is my blah-blah-blah entry) I am having a stronger reaction than I ever imagined to your juxtoposition of designers and engineers. It's not really about the differences or about "who's right" but maybe "how to combine two perspectives aimed at the same thing." I would argue that an engineer and a designer don't think that differently (function, efficiency, beauty, ease of production), but they aim at differnt aspects of the whole. I would say "I like creating things" of both an engineer and a designer. "I like computers" is a statement that seems way too specific to encompass the word "engineer." "I'm artsy" is a little undeveloped for a visual designer. For a lot of engineers, it's the love of creativity that they profess, and they happen to choose a medium different than colors and lines. That medium could be roofs and beams and stresses or it could be circuits or it could be lines of code and state machines. I am both an engineer and a designer. (I have a degree from a school of engineering and never took any formal graphic design courses.) Most engineers would use the word "design" to describe what they do. (evidence: having lived among them and also just completed a mental model of software engineers, a sub-species). I do have some visual design competence, but I know enough to be dangerous--and enough to leave those decisions to people who practice the graphic side of design.
3. It's true what you say about curriculums in schools and career paths, but the roots are very similar, and I would love to see that established.
4. The "for example" sentence about "uncoordinated medical specialists" needs clarification: it seems to be an innocent statement about how medical professionals really are coordinated. Maybe tweak a little? And add "if a smart general practitioner _or a smart patient_ takes it upon himself ..."
5. Perhaps, in table 3-1, you could replace "conceptual data" with "generative data," using the popular term for it. You can throw in "evaluative data" too in that cell. In that same table "play with data" might imply that they change it to make it fit some idea, a dangerous thought. And the "help organizations" vs. "help users" is not completely that black and white.
6. The "what" vs. "why" argument, at the end, sounds a bit off. Anyone who discovers why a person does something knows a bit about what is going on, don't they? "I answer forum posts because I feel like it's right to give back to my community. Especially since I ask questions in that forum, too." I know what is going on here, and the underlying philosophy.
7. Very true about knowing your strengths--and the strengths of others on your team. Don't force/ask one personality to do something that is not their strength. (This is typically how I see it surface.)
8. Example #1 is a bit too simple to serve as a really thought-provoking example. Maybe skip this one? Or add real-world complexity? I didn't think of a replacement off the top of my head, sorry!
9. Example #2 Wow! Is that the persona AP used to use a long time ago in our workshops? Hee!!! How fun. :) Hi Steven! Nice addition of search terms.
10. Example #3 again a bit too simple with the address. What about ordering, and running into import restrictions or lack of import knowledge that varies from country to country? Or, as at Dow Corning, each country had different rules about what additives were required in production (changes in humidity of the environment, for example), and certain ingredients were outlawed (for use in cosmetics, by the FDA, for example). This might be more realistically complex.
11. Figure 3-5: Can you label the second column with "characters" or "words" or whatever the length being specified is?
12. Three cheers for mentioning/emphasizing person-to-person connections! Some of the most informal connections turn into gold, I have seen. Give lots of compliments in the elevator, talk to people as you share a sidewalk or pass each other in the parking lot. Two sentences lead to finding out what the person focuses on, and it could be valuable to you. (brown bag series and ropes courses (rope climbing?!?) sometimes seem too formal, even, unless you are providing the pizza or cookies or even buying a $10 bag of candy)
13. Nice argument for & description of SSA! Give an example?
Posted by: Indi Young | November 11, 2009 10:27 PM
I'm downloading chapter 3 (...on a s l o w mobile connection) but you've got me really interested in chapter 2 now (which I'm guessing might be more my area of expertise). So if you need any feedback on that, too, let me know :)
Posted by: Adriaan Bloem | December 16, 2009 4:31 PM
Hi Adriaan; sorry about the connection! (Darned Atlantic Ocean getting in the way.) I think we're good to go on chapter 2, but I might change my mind. ;-) Either way, thanks for the help!
Posted by: Louis Rosenfeld
|
December 16, 2009 7:19 PM