1. Setting the scene
This week marked the shift from the ‘empathise’ and 'define' phases to the ‘ideation’ phase of my design thinking journey. It was now time to start taking all the research and thinking I’d done around my potential users, and using it to come up with solutions to help them meet their needs.
1.1. Self-criticism: too much self-criticism!
While ideation is usually one of my favourite UX activities, I found it much harder this week to get the creative juices flowing. Knowing I had a busy work week coming up, I tried to cram all of my learning and ideation into a couple of days. This proved extremely difficult, and led to a lot of self-criticism. Approaching ideation in an already rushed, anxious state is far from the most effective frame of mind for coming up with ideas – nor is it the best way to actually enjoy the process.
Enjoyment of the creative process is something I became particularly interested in during the Development Practice module. I was keen to explore a little more about what creativity means to me, and techniques and ways of thinking that would allow me to actually have fun during the process rather than putting pressure on myself to achieve ‘perfection’.
Artist Marcel Duchamp (1961) argues that all art is equally valid, be it “bad, good or indifferent [...] whatever adjective is used, we must call it art, and bad art is still art in the same way that a bad emotion is still an emotion.” Following this logic, we could say that all creative acts must always be considered 'creative', whether the creator or the intended beneficiary view this creativity as resulting in a positive, negative, or neutral experience.
To me, this is a highly liberating and motivating way of viewing creativity, giving me the confidence to ‘be creative’ safe in the knowledge that my attempts are legitimate, whether or not myself (or others) see them as a ‘success’ (Marshall 2022). Petty also provides some motivating insights into ‘bad ideas’ – something I’ve chastised myself for many times over the past week: “Most people take their poor ideas as a measure of their inability. This is nonsense. Poor ideas are inevitable, everybody has them.” (2017: 28).
Far from helping me enjoy the process or come up with ideas that I’m happy with, the excessive self-criticism I’ve subjected myself to this week has actively hindered my creativity. I want to learn to foster a much healthier attitude towards my own ideation process, that focuses less on frustration with the ‘bad’ and instead leans into optimism and searching for the positives that are always there when we look for them. To quote Petty again: “Positive affirmation is the compost of creativity. It grows talent, quality, motivation and joy. It also nurtures the self-belief that makes progress possible” (ibid: 168).
1.2. SMART goal: get back to my intrinsic motivations
Over the coming weeks of this module, then, I want to develop ways to keep my intrinsic motivations more firmly in mind. With intrinsically motivated creativity, “its performance is a goal in itself” (Bateson and Martin 2013: 3). In this way, ‘being creative’ means you don’t have to have a particular goal in mind – you can create for the sheer joy of it. This is something I want to lean into much further. Yes, often creation occurs in the context of professional work (or in this case, academic projects) – but that doesn’t mean we can’t approach the process from a place of enjoyment, and let inspiration, experimentation, and serendipity lead us to effective solutions.
In the Development Practice module, asking myself questions like ‘What do I get the most enjoyment from in my work?’ before each weekly challenge activity (Petty 2017: 208) gave me a greater sense of intrinsic motivation, giving me confidence that I would learn something valuable from each creative experience – no matter how ‘perfect’ the result. I want to re-adopt this positive questioning for each of the weekly challenge activities going forward, to help me get back in touch with my personal motivations (that is, why I decided to study for a degree in UX in the first place and what I want to get out of my learning). I’ll reflect in the coming weeks on whether this helps me to gain more enjoyment from (and be kinder to myself during) the challenge activities.
2. Gamification
2.1. Breadth of analysis: exploring key skills and domains – learning about gamification
Speaking of intrinsic motivations… I've enjoyed learning how great a role motivation plays in the gamification of user experiences. Up to now, if someone asked me what I understood by ‘gamification’, my first reaction would likely have centred around extrinsic forms of motivation that encourage people to continue engaging with an experience – things like points, badges, trophies, and leaderboards – i.e. traditional ‘game mechanics’ (Kumar and Herger, 2013: 69-91). While these kinds of rewards might be effective for “simple, rote tasks”, they can in fact be far less useful for activities requiring “higher cognitive functions or innovations” – and can even serve as de-motivators in some scenarios (ibid: 61). In contrast, intrinsic motivators like autonomy, mastery, and meaning can be much more effective for complex problem-solving tasks (ibid.)
Reflecting on motivation in the context of my users' needs (i.e. sharing and gaining skills, feeling confident in their chosen charity's trustworthiness, enjoying the experience, and having flexible volunteering options – see Fig. 1), I was unsure at first whether gamification would be an appropriate motivational technique. However, when I considered that the concepts of gaining new knowledge and sharing skills are inherently bound up with motivators like mastery and learning, I was able to come up with some potential gamified elements that could speak to users’ intrinsic motivations.
Fig. 1: Grouping 'How might we...' statements for my users' main goals and needs
For example, thinking about my specific users and the charitable giving context, a potentially effective form of motivation could be what Kumar and Herger call “challenge with epic meaning” (ibid: 78). This is where users “believe they are working to achieve something great, something awe-inspiring, and something bigger than themselves” (ibid.). By volunteering their skills, users are contributing to ’the greater good’, which they could be rewarded for with some kind of positive reinforcement each time they achieve a particular milestone.
Similarly, the “journey mechanic” (ibid: 81) emphasises the user’s personal journey and supports them from their first steps (i.e. onboarding), all the way through to their destination (i.e. scaffolding and progress measurements). In the context of volunteering time or skills, then, I wanted to look at using gamified elements that might typically be viewed as external motivators to complement, and perhaps even strengthen, my users’ existing intrinsic motivations.
2.2. Depth of insight: enhancing my practice – additional competitor analysis
Inspired by the ‘journey mechanic’ in particular, I decided to carry out some additional competitor analysis around onboarding flows – specifically, how they could be used to build excitement and anticipation, while also offering reassurance and guidance. I chose to delve deeper into the onboarding process for one of my favourite websites: Journee, a holiday planner that matches users up to a surprise destination (see Fig. 2). As planned last week, I also mapped out the onboarding flow for LinkedIn to gain a feel for how users are matched up to job opportunities that are most relevant to them and their skills (see Fig. 3).
The Journee flow in particular provided a lot of inspiration. The site uses a questionnaire to gather information about the user’s holiday preferences and craft the perfect getaway based on their responses. The flow is split into four parts: ‘Your travel taste’, ‘Your Journey trip’, ‘The practical stuff’, and ‘About you’. It begins by asking a series of fun, enticing questions about users’ travel preferences, with users rating things like ‘Doing outdoor activities’, ‘ Wandering around charming villages’, and ‘Visiting popular sites and landmarks’ out of five. The questions are accompanied by image carousels featuring attractive scenery, and the questions are kept short to avoid cognitive overload.
As the flow progresses, the questions become more practical, by which point the user is already excited and highly motivated to continue to the end to get their (free) personalised holiday quote. The experience, then, feels extremely personal, speaking to users’ intrinsic curiosity and autonomy over the shape and flavour of their trip:
Fig. 2: Insights from the 'Journee' onboarding flow
LinkedIn, in contrast, starts with a set of very basic questions (name, email address, etc.), before moving on to the ‘meatier’ topic of job history. Interestingly, the onboarding flow doesn’t actually let users add their skills while setting up an account – the option is first presented much later, after a user scrolls down through their profile.
One element I did find inspiring, however, was the 'Recommendations' section, with reviews from current and former colleagues and employers added to candidates' profiles. Reviews could be one way to foster trust among my users, providing social proof that the charities they get involved in are doing legitimately good work.
Fig. 3: Insights from the LinkedIn onboarding flow
2.3. SMART goal: experiment with onboarding information architecture
These additional analyses provided a lot of food for thought in terms of how I might use a gamified onboarding flow to add a sense of excitement to the process of selecting a charity to volunteer with. I'd like to try crafting a brief, targeted series of relevant questions, framed in the right tone using fun, positive, encouraging language, to match my users with the perfect volunteering opportunity – almost like filling out an online dating profile. I’m planning on experimenting with the exact content, framing, and ordering of these questions during next week’s module on information architecture. Ideally, I’d like to test a variety of messaging options with at least 2–3 potential users, to get some feedback on what language and style resonates the most.
3. Design studio (sketching and wireframing)
3.1. Breadth of analysis: exploring key skills and domains – rapid sketching and paper wireframes
Having already gained some useful insights from the gamification activity, I was excited to develop my ideas further by conducting my very first solo design studio (see Fig. 4). Looking at all my research and ideas so far, I spent six minutes drafting six potential solutions to my working problem statement:
"I need a way to donate to charity that works flexibly with my giving preferences and lifestyle, so that I can enjoy and benefit from the experience of giving to reputable causes that I trust and have an emotional connection with and see the real-world impact of my contribution."
Fig. 4: My solo design studio
This form of rapid ideation worked really well, as it allowed me to approach the problem from a few different angles, judgement-free. It also reminded me of the Crazy 8s activity we first practised in the Development Practice module, which I also enjoyed as a way of sparking fresh ideas and potential solutions.
On evaluation, some of my solutions resonated more than others, and some I deemed inappropriate for the specific problem I'm trying to solve. But the idea of a 'volunteering matchmaker' that matches people to volunteer opportunities based on things like existing skills, giving preferences, availability, and skills or knowledge they'd like to gain for themselves stood out to me in particular as a solution for further development.
I decided to create a series of basic paper wireframes to sketch out what a potential 'volunteering matchmaker' application might look like (see Fig. 5 – use the arrow to scroll along). I struggled to stick to just the basic sketching visual alphabet we were introduced to in this week's challenge activity, largely because I wanted to add some (very rough) content ideas from the beginning. However, I remembered to keep in mind from my rapid ideation activities in the Development Practice module that there isn't in fact a single 'correct' way to carry them out.
What's more, as Knapp argues, "writing is often the most important component of the solution sketch" and activities like design studios and Crazy 8s can be used just as effectively to "improve your phrasing" when your ideas involve words (2016: 75). I'd like to introduce this kind of approach to my colleagues at work as I become more embedded in my product teams over the next few months (see 3.2 Goal: run a ‘content-first’ design studio).
Fig. 5: Paper wireframes for a 'charity matchmaker' app
3.2. Depth of insight: enhancing my practice – taking part in a design studio at work
This week’s focus on ideation, sketching, and wireframing coincided perfectly with my very first experience of participating in a design studio ‘in the wild’ as part of an all-team workshop at work, comprising project owners, developers, designers, and UX writers (i.e. me!).
During the workshop, we participated in ‘lightning talks’ outlining the main challenges the team is currently looking to tackle, created ‘How might we…’ statements to kick-off initial ideation, conducted and presented back on mini-competitor analyses, sketched potential solutions, and dot-voted on the most promising ideas to take forward.
After a tough start to the week in terms of my own ideation efforts, the workshop served as a much-needed confidence boost. It provided the perfect opportunity to put some of the concepts I’ve been learning about this week into action in a professional setting. I was especially pleased with how I was able to emphasise the language and tone of the experience throughout the activities, inviting my colleagues to consider the linguistic (as opposed to the visual and interaction design) elements of the experience. It was also fantastic to hear the varied and nuanced insights from other members of the team around elements of the experience they felt could be optimised. Each person brought a fresh perspective to the problems we discussed, and the turn-taking involved in each task meant that every member of the team had equal opportunities to voice their ideas.
3.3. SMART goal: run a ‘content-first’ design studio
Inspired by the success of the workshop, I’m planning on running a content-led design studio in at least one of my product teams in the first half of the year. As well as generating ideas around specific problem spaces, I’d also like to use the studio as an opportunity to further educate my teams on the importance and power of well-designed content within the user experience. I’ll gather a combination of quant and qual feedback from the workshop using a survey, and use this to iterate and improve on the session for my other teams throughout the rest of the year.
4. Conclusions
Before I start next week’s content and challenge activities, I want to spend some time reflecting on my intrinsic motivations more deeply. What do I want to get out of this week’s learnings? What do I want to get out of the course itself, on a personal, academic, and professional level? Getting back in touch with my motivators will hopefully help me re-ignite the joy in the creative process, and give me a greater sense of purpose while completing the remaining weeks of the module.
4.1. How satisfied do I feel with my work this week?
1 = Very satisfied , 2 = Quite satisfied, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Quite frustrated, 5 = Very frustrated
Start of week (pre-activities): 4 – nervous to start ideation, unsure where to focus my efforts (how do I ideate when I don’t yet know what I’m doing?), lots of self-criticism
Gamification: 2 - enjoyed learning about motivations and game mechanics; could start to see how these concepts might apply to my work
Design studios: 1 - excited to be able to apply my academic learning to real-life professional scenarios; felt confident that I knew what I was doing, and felt that my ideas and contribution were valued by the team
5. References
BATESON, Patrick and Paul MARTIN. 2013. Play, playfulness, creativity and innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DUCHAMP, Marcel. 1961. The Creative Act [online]. Available at: http://www.fiammascura.com/Duchamp.pdf [accessed 18 February 2023].
KNAPP, Jake, John ZERATSKY and Braden KOWITZ. 2016. Sprint: How to solve big problems and test new ideas in just five days. Simon & Schuster.
KUMAR, Janaki and Mario HERGER. 2013. Gamification at Work: Designing Engaging Business Software. Online: The Interaction Design Foundation.
MARSHALL, Hollie. 2022. ‘Anyone for an ICEDIP?’ [online]. Available at: https://www.uxinthebath.com/post/anyone-for-an-icedip [accessed 18 February 2023].
PETTY, Geoff. 2017. How to be Better at Creativity. Lulu.com.
Comments