Objectivity is impossible. Don't you think?

Wiki: A cyborg, also known as a cybernetic organism, is a being with both biological and artificial (e.g. electronic, mechanical or robotic) parts.

I reckon they’ve arrived. In fact, I think I am one.

One thing that becomes startlingly obvious during usability tests with users of mixed abilities is the different approaches to technology in general.

A basic user will treat the computer as exactly that. It’s a machine that they have to turn on, move the mouse, click on things. An expert user will not even consciously consider that they are interacting with a machine; they will be too focused on the task in hand.

I remember my first computer. A ZX Spectrum. It made a terrible noise when it loaded a game and then after an hour it would announce that there had been an error and I had to load the game again. I was conscious that I was dealing with a machine. These days, my iPhone is like an extension to my body. Like an extra limb.

This full integration with technology is becoming more prevalent due to touch screen technology. Take the iPad as an example. We’re interacting using natural movement.

The result is a generation of users that have a greater level of trust online due to the lack of traditional barriers. I’m very interested to see how the iPad affects eCommerce sales for example. The fact we feel closer to the product is bound to increase our likelihood of buying.

I’m frightened of bike shops.

I like cycling but I’m not obsessed with my bike. I know the basics of how it works – wheels, gears, brakes and that kind of thing, but I couldn’t tell you about every detail of its composition. Frankly, it doesn’t really interest me.

That’s why when I enter a bike shop and ask them to give my bike the once over, I feel a bit daunted. A bit stupid. When speaking to an expert in their field about a subject they’re passionate about, often the expert is unable to talk to you without using specialist terms or unnecessary levels of detail.

The last time this happened to me, I was a little nervous and when I went back to the shop to collect my bike, I was asked “what it is?” to which I replied “the silver one”. I do actually know the brand of my bike, but my mind went blank.

This translates online. All too often, copy is written by a specialist within the organisation (particularly true within the public sector) and specialist terms are used which makes the user feel a little daft.

I’m not saying that all copy should be dumbed down to one syllable grunts, but check your copy with some target users before setting it live. Maybe look to hire an external copywriter too.

Don’t make your users feel like they have just said “the silver one”.

You are presented with 100 blenders. You choose one to purchase. Two weeks later, you hear that the blender you’ve selected has been voted best blender of 2010! Nice feeling eh.

Alternatively, if you’d selected one of the others and found out that the best blender of 2010 was actually cheaper that the one you bought, you feel a little daft. This is known as buyer’s regret.

We all crave choice. We love the supermarket. We like to feel that we’re confronted with all the options – we don’t want to miss out. However, we all have a fear of making the wrong decision. This concept manifests itself online in many ways.

For example, if you offer a user multiple routes to navigate to content, the user will hesitate before choosing one. This hesitation typically takes longer than if they had simply pursued one route and clicked the back button if they’d gone wrong.

Why do they do this? They don’t want to make what they perceive as a mistake. They don’t want to feel stupid.

Clearly, the most obvious way it manifests itself is when buying online. Let’s take Amazon as an example. Millions of products are available which satisfies our need for the widest possible choice. However, left to our own devices, we’d become almost unable to choose for fear of buyer’s regret. Amazon (and most leading ecommerce brands) get around this by narrowing the choice down immediately.

I search for a blender. I have over 500 results. I’m thinking that I’ll certainly be able to find the one I need from that lot. I’m also starting to think about choosing the wrong one (and the amount of time I’m going to need to make my decision).

Luckily… I’ve got a range of ways to narrow down my options. I can filter by price, by brand and even by popularity. I know I’ve got about £20 to spend, so I narrow on price and select the filter option of between £15 and £50.

Ah, now I’ve got 232 results which Amazon helpfully tells me.

Still too many, so now I’ll customise my price range to £15 to £25.

And I trust other buyers (most of us follow the pack), so I’ll narrow down based on customer reviews.

I now have 20 options. My last action is to check the best-selling ones, so I order them by using the drop down.

And I see the one I want. The chances of making a wrong decision are now minimised. I am confident to purchase and feel quite satisfied that I’ve invested a little effort in narrowing down my choices.

Conclusion – for information-led interfaces, minimise choice. For ecommerce, typically maximise choice but allow the user to narrow over several stages.

Ok, so when is a site search a bad idea? Well let’s consider a large content-driven website.

What can we be fairly certain of?

We know that some people have a bias towards search
We know that on a large content-driven website, users often have one aim and are committed to it
We know that, depending on the site, between 15% and 30% of users will use the internal search

This would lead to the conclusion that an internal search function is a good idea. But what if it throws up confusing results due to a poor search algorithm and/or the amount of content that has been tagged/classified incorrectly?

Poor search results lead to serious frustration. Often a user will be presented with a set of less than relevant results, but as they have personally made a choice to search, they often click one. At some point they need to abandon this route and select another (sometimes returning to search and trying again because they feel that the poor results were due to their own error). It can actually make them feel a bit stupid.

Surely, the answer is to improve the quality of the results? Well this isn’t always possible in the short term due to the infrastructure of the organisation. If there’s 100 plus content authors, then retraining is quite an onerous task in itself.

So in summary, if realistically a search can’t display decent results, it’s better to not have one at all and guide the user to down other routes to locate their content.

Excuse me while I take the moral high ground for a moment.

I have never been one to name and shame other agencies, I don’t agree with it. In fact, I often mention other agencies in a positive light and there are plenty that I admire.

Often I have found myself in the situation where I have been asked to comment negatively on the state of a website which requires redeveloping and the proficiency of the agency that developed it, but I have not been drawn into discussions. It’s just not good form.

I would rather say – well this is what we would do and here is the rationale behind our approach. However, whether it’s due to the current economic climate or other factors, there seems to be a spate of agencies contacting businesses to declare their disgust at certain aspects of their current website. Something along the lines of:

“Did you know that your website could seriously harm someone? It’s got sharp edges and that could have someone’s eye out. The technical details of this are far beyond your comprehension, so just take our word for it and sign up here”.

An approach which causes fear and unrest – which is understandable. The equivalent is one of those dubious builders on rogue traders that tells an elderly lady that her roof falling off.

Whether you are working with us or otherwise, I would advise anyone to carefully consider the motivation behind these emails before being thrown into a state of panic.

I was considering the title of “hats off to Red Bullet” but thought it a little contrived.

We need your help! Red Bullet are looking to collect an eclectic range of headwear for a new project. We are calling on all Milliners, hat enthusiasts and even hat/cap amateurs to send us your cast-offs.

Ideally (not that we can be fussy with such a request) we would like a broad mixture which covers:

• Baseball Hat (various colours)
• Builders Hat
• Beanie (various colours)
• Flat Cap
• Bowler Hat
• Wide Rimmed Ladies Hat
• Bobble Hat
• Crash Helmet
• Swim Hat

If you feel that you can help, please post them to The Old Dairy, Brogdale Farm, Brogdale Road, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8XZ and mark FAO Jim Ramsden.

Red Bullet mini (pictured) for the most interesting one!

Please note that hats will be returned. Please include your address details.

It’s been an interesting start to 2009 and one with a public sector edge. Prior to the Christmas break we were fortunate enough to win two competitive public sector pitches.

The first, for the local authority, involves the development of a learning and development portal which will help to shape the careers of around 40′000 local authority employees. The second, for the NHS, is part of the Smokefree campaign and is equally as efficacious.

January also saw the launch of the new Park Holidays UK website on time and on budget despite a tight new year deadline that led to a few of the guys having their Christmas dinners in the office…

We have a few further launches on the horizon including a consumer and a corporate site (pictured) for Crest of London, the UK’s leading provider of London Gifts. Watch this space.

I have long been a fan of the work of ad agency Mother. Recently I stumbled across a pitch video they used to win a campaign for Yellow Pages. The brief was “to create and deliver an emotionally engaging campaign that builds on the modern and relevant qualities of Yellow Pages”.

A seriously intelligent and simple way of communicating their ideas and also an interesting insight into the mentality of small businesses. Take a look:

I listened to a superb podcast recently provided by Anna Farmery of www.theengagingbrand.com. She interviewed a couple of marketeers from the States (Jimmy Vee and Travis Miller) and chatted about a concept they call “gravitational marketing”. Basically, they had an issue with many businesses failing to target a specific audience and as a result effectively firing off marketing material somewhere into the universe in the hope that they accidentally hit a star!

They refer to the term “gravitational” as they believe good marketing should pull consumers deep into the heart of a business (e.g. with metaphorical gravity).

One point they made, that struck me as something that is often overlooked, is the importance of making your brand “spreadable” – e.g. making it possible for your brand to be passed on. An example they gave was of a restaurant which had a series of theme nights. The nights were a huge success – costumes, sounds, lavish food etc… As customers left they were given a memento of their evening. The guys made the simple point that the restaurant should have asked the guests at the end of the evening for the names of 2 – 4 of their friends. The restaurant would then be able to send their friends a discount voucher and mention who wanted them to be sent one.

A simple process like this would ensure that after every event the brand is spreading. Also, to receive a recommendation from a friend is naturally 10 times more powerful than an impersonal mail out.

What could you do (or have you already done) to make your brand “spreadable”?