Capstone Progress

As I get closer to finishing up my project I’ve been reflecting a lot on my process. Overall, I’m quite happy with the way things turned out. I went into this project with a plan to try lots of new things. Beyond attempting to solve my research problem, I also wanted to test new ways of doing things. In the safe academic environment I wanted to experiment with new methods, unsure exactly how effective they’d be.

As an example, I really wanted to try and integrate content strategy more into UX. At the moment, there aren’t many set processes to include content strategy in the UX life-cycle. I believe content strategy is often far too ignored. Usability tests regularly only test placeholder content. In the end, users are able to find information, but it’s unknown how helpful/valuable that information really is. This is especially true for more complex user learning goals (like learning about retirement investing for instance).

One method I attempted was collaborative solution diagramming. I worked with users to (1) map out their learning goals around investing, and (2) sketch investing concepts out in real-time to see what “stuck” with them. Overall, it was a great knowledge transfer between both parties, and helpful in making decisions around content.

Once I had a better understanding of the mental model of new investors, I was able to confidently begin creating content. The content I made includes text copy, illustrations, and videos. Due to the lack of time left in the quarter I haven’t been able to produce much content, but I have a solid framework in place. Moving forward, I have a system to both create and test content.

I actually plan to fill out the rest of my site after the class (we’ll see if that agrees with my work schedule though). I am very interested in releasing my site to the wild and getting feedback from many more users. Until then, thanks for reading. While often challenging, this project has been quite the party. Look forward to continuing it in the future!

Last week I talked about Saras Sarasvathy’s effectual decision-making and how it’s better to craft goals with your given means, rather than acquire means to achieve predetermined goals. After a whirlwind week of project work I felt the need to revisit this principle. Why? Because I love cutting corners.

Cutting corners is often described in negative terms. In most professions, it is. We don’t want builders to cut corners. We don’t want doctors to cut corners. As someone in UX though, the ability the cut corners (and know when to do so) is important.

Case in point, I originally planned on doing a live Bootstrap prototype of my site. I wanted my prototype to have the real look and feel of a polished site prior to doing more testing (beyond the class, mind you). Since content is so important to my project, I wanted potential users to experience the content as they would in a final site. Bootstrap seemed like a good choice because it’s a pretty established framework that I’d tinkered with some before. But that was over a year ago. And now I was very rusty.

Last week I found myself increasingly worried I couldn’t get my prototype site done in time. I felt a sense of increasing dread each additional hour spent looking at Bootstrap’s documentation. Then I realized, I don’t have to do this. My project goal at the beginning was to figure out how to make the learning process less painful for new investors. The tool/process to do this is irrelevant.

Using Sarasvathy’s effectual decision-making principles I realized bootstrap development was not in my means. I quickly scanned my available means and realized I could use Adobe’s WYSIWYG Muse to create my prototype site. Muse would allow me to quickly create a live site with visual design in place for future content testing. There were some negatives (e.g. limitations of Muse as a tool), but there were many more positives. I cut a corner in my original plan, but it was the right choice to make. Using effectual-decision making significantly helped with my decision and saved me tons of time and grief. Cutting corners is fun.

Early last year I was lucky enough to take Skip Walter’s HCDE 534 “Designing Human Centered Ventures.” I found one reading from the course particularly interesting: Saras Sarasvathy’s writing about the mindset of an entrepreneur. In short, Sarasvathy believes a successful entrepreneur doesn’t begin with a goal in mind and then cobbles together the means to accomplish the goal. Instead, entrepreneurs look at their means first and see what they can do based on their resources (see the diagram below from Sarasvathy’s site). Sarasvathy calls this being effectual.

I’ve tried to take this effectual approach on my own projects. For this current project I’ve applied Sarasvathy’s effectual principles a number of times in order to keep things moving. One of Sarasvathy’s principles is her “Bird in Hand Principle” which she defines as “Don’t wait for the perfect opportunity. Start taking action, based on what you have readily available.” This principle helped me reframe my idea almost entirely. Initially I wanted to create a sort of financial services company. Realizing I didn’t have the means to follow through with this idea, I looked at my resources and realized I could create a site that includes financial education information instead.

Another principle Sarasvathy presents is the “Affordable Loss Principle” where she suggests entrepreneurs “Evaluate opportunities based on whether the downside is acceptable, rather than on the attractiveness of the predicted upside.” I used this principle just this past week. While creating my interaction design plan I thought up some new and (likely) difficult to implement interaction design patterns. Now that I’m approaching development I realized how much of a headache coding those patterns would be. Framing my problem with the “Affordable Loss Principle,” I realized having simpler interactions would be more than acceptable and the upside of going through the extra work would not be worth it.

In working on a project, especially a self-driven one like this, it’s important to have guidelines and principles to help with the myriad decisions that pop up constantly. Sarasvathy effectual reasoning is a tremendous help when it comes to this type of self-driven decision-making.

At this point I have an interaction design roughed out along with some visual design ideas. I also have a content strategy plan co-developed during the user research phase. The only thing missing? Content. As a glutton for punishment, I thought I’d develop my own content for this project. Sadly, my friends lorem ipsum and istockphoto.com won’t be coming along for the ride. Sorry guys.

So, how am I going to develop content that helps accomplish user goals? Luckily, I have some user research to help with the content creation process. In earlier posts I identified how user confidence and time are two of the main deterrents to investing. I’ve really embraced this finding and am using it to audit nearly every bit of content for the site. When working on a piece of content for the site (video, illustrations, etc.) I ask the following two questions:

1. Is the content respectful of the user’s time, meaning:
   • Can they quickly absorb the information? and/or
   • Is the material enjoyable enough to not worry about the time spent consuming it?
2. Does the content boost user confidence around the subject, meaning:
   • Do they feel confident enough about a topic to not leave the site for more information?
   • Will they feel comfortable making retirement investing decisions once they’ve moved through the site flow?

Creating content for learning about retirement investing has proved to be a tremendous balancing act. On one hand, users don’t want to spend much time learning about investing. On the other hand, they need to learn and process a certain amount of information to make an informed decision. Having a content audit has allowed me to balance these sometimes conflicting user concerns. Overall, having a research-based content audit has been very helpful in the content creation process.

As part of my user research I reached out to new investors to better understand their goals and fears in learning about investing. Collecting this information has been helpful in making educated decisions as I enter the interaction design phase. Below is my site map along with information on how research informed the interaction design of my site.

Two findings that have continually sprouted up as deterrents to investing are user confidence and time (see my week 3 post below for more information). In my site information architecture I’ve attempted to address those worries straightaway with content that shows how investing can be both accessible and less time consuming than you think.

Doing user research has also revealed a commonality of new investor questions. One of the first questions to pop up is, “Why should I invest?” While users know they should invest, they don’t fully understand the benefits of investing. Because users want to understand the value of investing upfront that is the next bit of content served up (after addressing their worries).

Overall, this approach has been helpful in creating a path for users that aligns well with their learning goals. With a goal-oriented interaction design the learning process should be more intuitive and natural for users.

This past week was spent defining content for the site, along with a little user research. I had one especially interesting session with a potential user. In Vijay Kumar’s great book 101 Design Methods he explores a concept called Solution Diagramming, which he defines as “diagramming to think through solutions and to show how solutions work.” Whereas solution diagramming would typically be something completed by a project team to synthesize research, I thought it would be interesting to inject user feedback into this process.

In my version of solution diagramming, I sat down with a potential user and began producing rough visualizations/diagrams around the investing process. My goal was to show why investing is important while getting a better understanding of the user’s mental model of investing.

While trying to depict abstract investing concepts into concrete images I received feedback throughout on what makes sense (or not), along with finding out what was particularly valuable to the user. Throughout the exercise, I was able to expose many of my own blind spots in thinking about the site.  One basic user question I hadn’t thought about was: “Why should I invest in retirement over just buying stocks?” Discovering user questions like this is very helpful in putting together the site content.

In short, collaborative solution diagramming proved to be a helpful exercise. In a way, it was a sort of low-fidelity content test. Since my site will be very visual, solution diagramming had the added benefit of helping me ideate site imagery too. If possible, I plan to explore solution diagramming more as a method in the coming weeks to see what content resonates with users. Below is one very out of context image from the solution diagramming session.

So far my research has shown that two of the main deterrents to investing are confidence and time. Investing is seen as such an impenetrable concept to so many people. Talking to people, you can sense a very real discomfort around investing. There is a concern that even if people begin looking at investing, they worry they won’t know enough to make an educated decision. Confidence and time are also linked in interesting ways. Given how investing is seen as such an impenetrable subject, people also feel they lack the time to fully understand it.

It’s interesting comparing my present user research with early investigations I did into retirement investing. For a recent class I mapped out the retirement investing process through Activity Theory. In the diagram below you can see how a person’s motives and goals influence their actions while going through the investment process. Diagramming the investing process really shows how the complexity of investing tests users’ confidence. Also, present methods are very time intensive.

Moving forward, it will be important to integrate these findings into the content strategy and interaction design. The interaction design already has mechanisms to accommodate different time-based browsing behaviors (deep read, skimming, etc.). Content strategy is a little trickier. It should be an interesting challenge to present content that improves user confidence and makes them feel comfortable with a seemingly difficult subject.

While my project is about helping people learn about retirement investing, it also has an ulterior motive: I want to better integrate content strategy within UX. I’m using this project to see how content strategy can be effectively implemented within the UX project life-cycle, and worked into development iterations. All too often practitioners find themselves testing a site with lorem ipsum or other placeholder content. While testing often reveals whether the mechanics to find content are usable, I believe our field could work harder to make sure the content users access has real value and is useful.

“Content is the treasure; UX is the treasure hunt.”

— Content strategist Rahel Anne Bailie

To create more useful content for users, my project consists of three equal parts developed simultaneously: research, design, and content strategy. Here’s a recent example from the past week of combining these areas:

1. My research shows that most people are financially illiterate – research
2. So, I need to create content that accommodates all types of investors (zero investing knowledge on up) – content strategy
3. I then need to have an interaction design that allows people to jump around easily to fill in their gaps of investing knowledge – interaction design

Here’s a rough sketch from the past week showing how the process above could be implemented. Basically I would have a fixed side navigation that travels as you move down the page. The side nav would dynamically show your progress and also allow you to see the breadth of the site. This allows people to explore topics in a linear direction or jump around to fill in gaps of knowledge. Looking forward to developing this further in the coming weeks!

Retirement investing is a painful process for many people. A big part of this is widespread financial illiteracy: over 50% of American adults are financially illiterate. When new investors decide to invest they are presented with an overwhelming amount of information that tests their confidence to make an informed decision. Current methods to educate investors are often steeped in industry jargon, acting as a further deterrent to investing. This either 1. Makes the user not invest, 2. Makes the user invest poorly, or 3. Makes the user spend significant (and unnessary) time to make an informed decision. I believe this doesn’t have to be the case. By asking the right research questions, I believe I can come up with a unique solution that makes in-roads into improving investor education. The chief research question is:

How can we make the new investor experience less painful?

I received such a perfect email the other day that shows this issue clearly. It was from Mint.com. Mint is an amazing company and offers one of the better user experiences of a financial site or tool. The email wanted to remind me that the tax deadline for making retirement investments for 2013 was fast approaching. It suggested I open an IRA account by visiting their personalized IRA center and getting a customized recommendation. Awesome!

Overall, Mint’s experience is world’s better than investment companies though. After you find out (sorta) from Mint which investment vehicle you should use, you can start investing with one of Mint’s five “sponsored” partners. Remember this a funnel to get new retirement investors to sign up and begin a life-long relationship with these investment companies. Surely these investment companies would have messaging that matches to new investor goals?

Only TD Ameritrade offers a nice call to action: Learn to retire. Once there, you’re left with limited learning options however. Charles Schwab’s landing site shoots itself in the foot pretty remarkably; the first thing you see on their site is that their IRA’s only receive a 4.2/5 rating from their customers (no thanks).

So what do we do when the best financial tool (Mint) and the largest financial companies with the most at stake (Vanguard, Charles Schwab, etc.) can’t explain investing well? That’s the question. Stay tuned.