Interface Bikes Toxic Grandfather. “Artifacts my ass!” (s1 e5)

Greetings. We are again on our way to the closet of Toxic Grandfather. This time the door is wide open, almost does not smell of tobacco and music is not heard. Grandfather lies on the couch and in an undertone speaks on the phone.



We: Great, Grandfather!

Grandfather raises his finger, and continues to mutter into the phone.

TD: And what is he? … And you? ... Come on ... Well, okay, according to the schedule. Load the oranges in barrels.

She hangs up, rises heavily from the couch and sits down at her desk.

TD: So what do you already need?

We: We looked at the materials on your projects here and there are no artifacts there.

TD: What is not there?

We are: Artifacts.

TD: Do I need it?

We: Well, what about? This is a common practice.

TD: Who accepted? Where is the accepted?

We: Grandfather! Do not make us a head.

TD: What are you gentle. What kind of artifacts do you have?

We: Well, how? Scripts, persons, custom cards, empathy cards.

TD: Avon like. And if a person is not mentally retarded?

We: What?

TD: Well, if a person does not need all this one-time visualization?

We: So. Let's talk.

TD: Why tell you something? Why in enterprise this marketing didn’t fall?

We: Yes.

TD: And back, do I need it?

We: Well, Grandfather!

TD: Okay, don’t whine. What was the first thing there?

We: Scenarios.

TD: Is it a cloud with inscriptions and arrows?

We: Well, if in a simple way, then yes.

T.D .:I occasionally use this abstraction to test an already formed top-level prototype. But in general, the scenario (as the path that the user traverses) is usually described in analytics and there is no need to draw additional schemes of need. As a rule, the scenarios are very simple, which is on the upper, on the lower level. And to reduce them all to one huge scheme does not make much sense. Moreover, they periodically change. No, I’m not campaigning for anyone, and if you want to spend time on useless work, who’s against it?

We: You yourself said that enterprise development is a marathon. And after six months, you may need to figure out a specific moment again.

T.D .:Well yes. And you can see how it works in the prototype. Which is much simpler and clearer, plus analytics should always be at hand, and there, as I said above, the scripts are fully described in text. By the way, analytics may well contain functional schemes of work, and here they are much more useful than all the scenarios combined.

We: And if you need to urgently transfer the work to another employee? What, should he read all analytics and understand everything new?

T.D .:Well, firstly, grocery companies do not have the same turnover as in studios, and people do not change quickly there (as a rule). Secondly, yes, it should. They pay money, among other things, for the fact that the specialist must be able to plunge into the subject area and analytics for the task in a sensible time. I don’t understand why it scares you so much. Rather, I understand. A slightly different attitude. In enterprise, a designer is more likely one of the developers than a designer in the usual sense. To make it easier to think of yourself as a front-end with representative visual competence.

We: Well, you said it, of course.

TD: And what's wrong?

We: Yes, everything seems to be right, but we don’t like it.

TD: Great, right?

We:Okay. Come on about user portraits.

TD: Come on.

We: Do you even know what this is?

TD: Well Duc.

We: Why aren't you doing?

TD: Yes, I generally try not to waste time in vain. Especially working. Well, let's say I write that the main users are managers from the advertising department and their leadership. Age from 25 to 36, women 54% men 46%. What will it give me?

We: Well, you will understand for whom the interface is made.

T.D .:I repeat. We are on the enterprise or in general in the internal development, the pictures with kittens there didn’t fall for anyone. The UI-kit most likely already exists and cannot be changed, and there is no reason to. The task is to make a convenient business application, logically coherent, predictable and reliable. How will the logic of work change if I find out that 30% of future users like to walk in the park and vanilla cappuccino?

We: Well, when you say that, it seems like nothing.

T.D .:Instead of all these nonsense it’s very useful to visit the “field”. Look at specific people and the specific conditions in which they will work. For example, radiologists absolutely do not need beautiful animations, they eat time and watch the same effect, albeit very beautiful, but for the first thousand times a day, they don’t have any desire. They need the interface to be dark and not very contrasting and to hide it at all with a single button. They look through the pictures in the twilight mode in the conveyor mode, it is important for them that their eyes do not get tired and the pictures are loaded instantly. And this has nothing to do with the fact that most of them like cats (for example).

We: And what is direct without any animations?

T.D .:Animations, and the whole interface for real work, should be noticeable just enough so as not to distract from the task. In other words, the animation that makes the interface smooth (not slow, but smooth) is true. Animation for the sake of animation - flies.

We: Suppose. Let's go further. Why don't you have CJM?

T.D .:Because this is the second meaningless abstraction that is shoved into all negotiations and speeches. If we are talking about the real world, then we have analytics in which the functional and basic scenarios of work are spelled out. We have our own research on the subject area and working conditions of juzverejs. You should also have knowledge and understanding of the patterns on which good interfaces are built. With all this, you don’t have to enter another abstraction at all. You have everything on hand.

We: You all have one answer - “Read analytics”.

TD: Finally! I thought not to notice.

We: We understand that it’s useless to ask you about empathy cards?

TD: Well, why? Ask!

We: You do not do them.

T.D .:Yeah. Because it is the most meaningless abstraction. This is what you have to stop by in order to seriously ask living people how they feel when working with your interface. What does the accountant feel, say and do when filling out the table? Are you sick or what? What are the pain points? What are the values ​​and achievements? Have you completely gone wrong in your creativity? Sit at your interface and fill out this fucking table yourself. After 20 minutes, much will become clear to you. After 2 hours, you will be ready to design an interface for which you will be thanked. After testing and making adjustments, you will get a result that will work for years. No need to replace real work with idiotic gestures and creating visibility. Immerse yourself in a subject, study analytics (it is written just for you in the end), constantly try to use the interface,which you get. It is important not to imagine, namely to imitate the user's work as fully as possible! And you will never need any artifacts. Learn the materiel.

We: Alright, alright. What have you got?

TD: Yes, I do not like this nonsense. I can’t eat it.

We: Well, you are ... that ... we will go shorter.

TD: What? Do not even drink tea?

We: By tradition, parting word?

TD: This is so ... nya, little ones.