Journey Mapping: It’s Not About the Destination, It’s About the Journey

Journey Maps:

Customer journey maps are a useful tool to gain more information about a person’s experience. Like a persona, it provides in depth information and insights about what might influence someone’s behavior. It tells us not only about why a person made a certain decision, but what influenced them to make those decisions, and how they felt about the decisions they made. This type of granularity provides a wealth of information that can be incredibly helpful in targeting certain demographics.

About the Subject:

About the Trip:

Journey Map: A Visual Representation

Takeaways:

• The journey map framework is a great way to hear someone’s experience in their own voice. The details they choose to give unprompted are just as revealing as this framework. In my experience it became more like the interview subject was telling a story, and I was interjecting with certain questions in between. It flowed almost as naturally as a conversation. This could be due in part to my familiarity with the subject, but I believe the format of this type of research plays a role as well.

• In this case, the interview subject identified “high points” and “low points” in the planning process and their time on the trip, which spoke to how they reflect on the trip given that time has passed. It gave me insight into what parts of the planning and trip stuck out to them most, and I was able to further ask them questions about why they chose to use certain resources or consult certain people.

• There is almost an abundance of information to categorize in this type of interview. Having a set journey map template or framework before going into the interview was helpful to organize my thoughts in how to present the information, and also guide my line of questioning. This leads me to believe that the process of creating a journey map for any type of research activity requires a lot of planning and consideration on how to segment someone’s journey, and how to present the information in the most compelling way that will provide more insight.

Building Empathy: Generative Research

The following images are one participant’s answers in a generative research exercise. See below for some further observations on these results, and further analysis on conducting this research activity.

Close to You:

Digital Ecosystem:

Typical Weekday:

Findings:

What struck me as I reviewed the answers from the participant is that I was able to sketch a fairly detailed picture of who this person was in my mind. While these activities ask very particular questions, it gives insight into what drives someone and what they hold close, their primary sources of informational content they consume, and their typical routine.

In the first task, “Close to You,” this participant included both concrete objects as well as abstract concepts. I found this interesting as the instructions I administered referred to identifying “stuff” someone could not live without. They noted “confidence” and “integrity” among what they could not live without, as well as “justice” for something they care about. And they defined confidence in a very particular way, what it meant to them versus the general meaning of the term. They described it as, “Belief in my particular beauty. Not to be judged by the mundane world.” I thought this was a particularly thoughtful definition that offered a great deal of insight in how the participants views themselves, as well as the world around them. Another detail I found interesting was the degree of specificity in some of the responses.

In the second task, “Digital Ecosystem,” the participant highlighted three sources of information, all equally important to them and used most frequently. Upon expanding on these, they gave very specific examples on which particular sources they receive content. For “web search” they noted “visualcapital.com,” “seekingalpha.com,” and “techcrunch.com,” and noted they liked that it provided articles about areas such as economics, politics, venture capital, and tech companies. For “national TV broadcast websites” they named their favorite podcast, NPR’s Planet Money. In administering the tasks as a researcher, I did not note that they had to give any examples, but the participant made it a point to give their favorite sources for information and updates.

Researching these outlets further, I can get a more specific sense of what kinds of content they consume the most. It might be even more helpful to make an addition to this task and ask research participants to give an example of which sites, outlets, or mediums fall under the categories they identified, in order to get a clearer picture of who they are and what they value. In looking for similarities between these activities, there was more similarities in responses on the second and third tasks versus the first. Between tasks two and three, the participant mentioned news and web as areas they seek information on throughout a typical day.

Experience as a researcher:

I noted the task was fairly easy for the participant to complete, however it was time consuming. Administering the instructions was not as easy since the tasks were beyond a typical survey, asking the participant to draw and also connect different responses to other parts of the task. Depending on the participant, some may give much more thought to the kinds of responses they give versus one that is not able to devote as much time.

I would describe this type of research activity as valuable in terms of the insight and information there is to gain. Because the activities ask participants to elaborate on their answers, there is a level of detail that is added. However, as is the problem with many self response surveys, participants might feel pressured to give a certain type of response, or hold back on something they would have written if they see it as something that is not “socially acceptable” or could reflect poorly on them. 

There are a few ways these tasks could be improved upon. One I would identify as most important is the format of how respondents answer these questions. “Close to You” and “Digital Ecosystem” are fairly easy and straightforward in how they ask the participant to answer the questions. However, I found that during the “Typical Weekday” task, I received more questions on how it should be filled out and whether they were completing the activity correctly. I think it could be improved by separating the timeline and category sections further. An easier way to connect the two would be to have stickers or cutouts of the categories, where respondents could then easily place them on the timeline.

In the second task, the worksheet could up improved by updating the categories. There are certain online news sources such as podcasts that were not given their own bubble. Given the rise of podcasts and frequency many people download and consume them, this would be a valuable data point in this type of research.

I also believe that this activity could be improved by breaking up the “twitter, facebook, etc.” category. While these are both social media platforms, I think there are vast differences in the way news and information are presented between these, and other, sites. For example, Instagram is primarily visual, and by nature of how it is set up, encourages information to be presented in a specific way. I think the differences between Twitter and Facebook are just as vast as they would be between a national magazine online versus an online video. The degree of richness in the data could be improved by making this change in categories, especially as social media continues to grow in popularity and frequency of use in one’s digital ecosystem.

Personas | Antora Majumdar: An Overview

The Elements of Good Design

It’s a Saturday morning, a day you’d usually sleep in, but you have plans. So at a quarter to nine your Google home starts playing a soft tone, alerting you that it’s time to get up. Your eyelids are heavy and from under your blankets you call out, “Okay Google, give me five more minutes.” After a few more snooze requests you finally get up, making your way to the bathroom to brush your teeth. Then it’s off to the kitchen where the first order of business is coffee. You pop a small cylindrical container into your coffee machine, and a slice of bread into your toaster. You snoozed your alarm a few times too many so as you’re scarfing down your breakfast you call for a Lyft. Using the app you type in your destination, the local modern art museum where you’re hoping to catch the latest interactive installation. Grabbing your keys from the ring by the door you run outside and into the awaiting vehicle.

By the time your day is over you’ve interacted with dozens, if not hundreds, of products, services, and even an experience or two, that were all designed with you in mind. In many instances, we might not give much thought to these design elements. How often do we notice the length of the bristles on our toothbrush or the shape of the handle? The keyring next to our door holds keys, but is otherwise quite unremarkable. Does this mean these products are designed poorly? Not necessarily. These are products designed for function, and the ease of integration in our lives and frequent use make them quite useful. But in other instances, we might open a food delivery app and find ourselves exiting out of it after a cursory browse. Maybe the icons are too small, and every time we try to click on the menu button we’re redirected to the menu for Chipotle. In this frustration, we can recognize the signs of a poorly designed product; not worth the time to even try to use the function, despite the convenience the service may provide us.

But how can we determine what defines a good design? On the surface, it seems like a very nebulous and subjective question. Design is found in everything, from the products we use to the content we consume. We see it when we watch films, a Wes Anderson production versus Tim Burton, two entirely different production design styles. Everyone has their own preferences. From home décor to video editing platforms, smartphones to cars. And over time trends change, what is fashionable, in demand, or aesthetically pleasing shifts dramatically from one decade to the next, or even year to year.

So perhaps there are no hard and fast rules about what makes a design inherently good. But we can certainly look at what marks a “design success.” In doing so, there are a few key elements that can be identified, which contribute to a successful, or “good,” design.

Functionality
Does the design offer a specific use or experience? It does not have to be something you use every day, but could instead provide utility in how it makes you feel.

User Experience
First and foremost, the design should have the end-user or the customer in mind. Apple, one of the most notable brands in the product design space, have had lots of success with their iPhone products. When someone thinks “product design” this type of smartphone is likely top of mind. But even this product, created to blend function and style has significant faults when it comes to user experience. As iPhone launches  new product lines and culls old ones, the size of their phone models have continued to grow. But they failed to account for a very important feature. The size of their phone and the customers who are using them. Women have been shown to own and use iPhones at a higher rate, and yet the size of many of these phones has not been designed with them in mind. In fact, Apple has recently been the target of backlash as women are having trouble with these larger sizes.

@ZEYNEP ON TWITTER

Additionally, in service to user experience, the design elements should offer some level of ease of use. How intuitive is it to your customers?

Cohesion
Do the design elements all work together? Does it fit together in a natural way that makes sense? Is it part of a larger brand image? All aspects of the design should adhere to a standard that makes sense with the type of product.

Uniqueness
How original is the design? Maybe it is a service or product that can be seen in many different iterations, but does the design offer some benefit to users that cannot be easily recreated or found in another similar product? A successful design should be distinguishable, and not easily replaced with a competitor.

To further explore these tenants of successful design, let’s explore two examples.

AWAY

Away is a travel and lifestyle brand that have launched a series of travel luggage items. Most notably, their line of suitcases, which are becoming increasingly popular.

TRAVEL AND LEISURE

Functionality: The Away suitcases offer a sturdy luggage product in a variety of sizes fit for all types of travel. One incredibly popular and unique feature is the battery inside which allows users to plug in and charge their phones straight from the suitcase itself.

User Experience: The suitcases come equipped with a combination lock so travelers do not have to bother with the hassle of matching TSA approved luggage locks to specific keys. Additionally, users are able toe easily eject the battery, should they need to remove it for any reason.

Cohesion: Despite different sizes of suitcase, the Away luggage line has a clear and cohesive aesthetic. With a minimal design with options for customers to select from a choice of colors, all of the suitcases are designed in the same way. This adds to the Away luggage brand modern and functional.

Uniqueness: With its charging port, Away offers customers a unique advantage that many other retailers do not, and has become one of the more popular go-to brands for young travelers looking for luggage.

The reaction to Away and their brand of luggage has been strong. By taking into account the needs of the modern traveler, and the demands of what people are looking for today- integration with technology- there is a clear customer base that appreciates the design and use of this product.

Going forward Away could further build on the user experience aspect of their design by allowing for more customization. Another design feature they could add would be to allow for name engravings or reusable name plates, so travelers do not have to bother with luggage tags, building on the product design functionality feature. But Away should take care with this line of thinking. Adding too many extras could detract from the core design principals and what makes the product so popular with travelers.

GLOSSIER

Glossier is a makeup and skincare company which conducts the majority of their sales through e-commerce. Quickly becoming a favorite in the makeup bags of all different women, these products have a distinct design.

THE ANNA EDIT

Functionality: At its most basic, Glossier has provided a successful container for holding makeup products, focusing on keeping them lightweight and portable for use throughout the day.

User Experience: The design of these products make it very clear what the product is and how it can be applied. The packaging is simple, not cluttered with too much information. Making use of small containers, tubes, and pots, the product design makes it easy for anyone to use this product, whether they are new to trying makeup, or longtime users. Another important aspect is their focus on design of products to suite a wide range of skin tones and customers. The range of products offers enough choices for everyone, while still maintaining a streamlined portfolio of options.

Cohesion: All of the Glossier makeup and skincare products follow a similar design aesthetic. Clear labeling, and simple information and packaging. It is a minimal design which appeals to a wide range of customers.

Uniqueness: The products themselves offer makeup users a certain type of look that can be created. It builds on the customer’s natural features, and the simplicity of the product is a significant draw in a time when many people are experiencing decision fatigue. And multiple products can be repurposed for a variety of uses (for example the lip products can be used for blush or even eye makeup).

The successful use of design in crafting the Glossier product has led to overwhelmingly positive reactions in the market. These products have come to be coveted and use on social media by influencers or celebrities have capitalized on the identifiable design, driving up demand and interest in using the brand.

As Glossier continues to expand their product line into other items, it will be important to stick to the key design elements that have led to its success in the market. Adding a wide range of color options or sub types of products to choose from would ultimately have a negative impact on the design.

Looking at Away and Glossier together, it is clear that they both have a minimal design aesthetic. Beyond how they look to customers, both of these companies offer products that perform a specified function, and aim to be a quality product on that metric. They are not trying to be everything in one, but rather providing a design that meets the primary needs of their customer base, and offers a level of creativity that distinguishes them from their competitors. When considering the elements of successful design, Glossier comes out a little further ahead than Away, having been able to compete in such a saturated market and still produce a well-designed product that is accessible and in demand from many different types of customers.