Date post: | 28-Jul-2015 |
Category: |
Design |
Upload: | uxpa-boston |
View: | 228 times |
Download: | 1 times |
faulty by design: an examina(on of user decision making
Boston UXPA Bill Gribbons, Ph.D Director of UX Programs, Bentley University Founder of the User Experience Center and Studio [email protected] May 2015
what we will consider
decision making in our lives decision making as a window to all behavior the faulty nature of decision making underlying causes affects on user behavior and performance possible design support
what is decision making? where I am many choices where I want to be
uncertainty invest'ent costs
value cog/itive disabilit2
St4ess
confidence available infor'ation ex9er:ise
cult;re
age
Time-‐to act fatig;e risk
let’s face it: we’re bad at it we are designed to minimize effort and optimize performance… even in the most critical life decisions…
our most expensive purchases, investments, business decisions, choosing life partners… and the list goes on and on….
for example: #1 financial concern of Americans is enough money to reCre just over half of adult Americans are saving anything for reCrement 50% of 45-‐50 year olds have saved less than $25,000 for reCrement
and need I share the stats on American's health goals versus the decisions they make.
what’s wrong? is it a hardware or software problem?
load anxiety near-‐term focus
a quick note on biases and heurisCcs
systemaCc errors are know as biases and they occur predictably in parCcular contexts heurisCcs, in the hands of an expert, are probability based rules driven by recogniCon of paOerns (not intuiCon)
efficiency and load based on a limited pool of aAentional resources, we tend to be cog/itive misers
when faced with a difficult question, we often answer an easier one…
heuristics and simple r;les
t29icalit2 bias
availabilit2 bias
simplif2 choices
Kahneman’s noCon of bounded raConality
anchoring bias
satisficing
near-‐term outlook
we should be planning for re(rement… … but, that sports car sure looks good in the driveway today….
behavioral economists credit this to a bias for near-term survival
we are designed to keep anxiety in check
confir'ational bias
selective omission
avoidance behavior
t;nnel vision or
cog/itive nar4owing
what happens if we don’t?
what does this mean for our users?
are we designing for hypotheCcal logical raConal agents or real people? this gets tricky, as Kahneman states, people tend to exaggerate the role of the slow, raConal side of their thinking
buOons
Two days later…
at time of purchase when using the product
compensaCng for the predictably irraConal
for example, while interviewing a future user for the previous slide’s product the conversaCon might go like this: “ I can understand why you like those buAons – you know, I love buAons too, but (pause…) humor me for a moment. What if we desig/ed a device with fewer buAons but with a lower cost and increased ease of use?” “here, let me show you……”
In other words, what I did is swap out the “false value” of buOons for the real human value of investment costs -‐-‐-‐ Cme and money.
Let’s take a look
first the bad….
7 plans 21 coverage aspects no comparison engine no filters connecCons: load, simplificaCon, opCmism
© William Gribbons, 2015
© William Gribbons, 2015
A different approach…
more bad…
© William Gribbons, 2015
A few more stories….
X Sorry, pictures are not advisable here to avoid legal problems and keep me a free man….
connec3on: perhaps capturing the expert’s rule or heurisCc? connec3on: anxiety, countering availability bias
the case of Zillow
Connec3on: providing the buyer with logical, raConal simplificaCon filters rather than allowing this process to play out emoConally or irraConally in the subconscious of the buyer (thinking fast)
the future…beware the “nudger”
closing thoughts
design to support “real people” rather than a mythological raConal logical, agent. consider these behaviors in our interacCons with users in the field seek to counter these persistent psychological forces without venturing too far down the slippery slope of nudging