Goals
Understanding goals
If personas provide the context for sets of observed behaviors, goals are the
drivers behind those behaviors. User goals serve as a lens through which
designers must consider a product's functions. The product's function and
behavior must address goals via task. Remember, tasks are only a means to an
end; goals are that end.
Goals motivate usage patterns
People's or personas' goals motivate them to behave as they do. Thus, goals
don't just provide an answer to why and how personas want to use a product.
Goals also can serve as shorthand in the designer's mind for the sometimes
complex behaviors in which a persona engages and, therefore, for their tasks
as well.
Goals should be inferred from qualitative data
You usually can't ask a person what his goals are directly. Either he'll be unable
to articulate them, or he'll be inaccurate or even imperfectly honest. People
simply are unprepared to answer such self-reflective questions accurately.
Therefore, designers and researchers need to carefully reconstruct goals from
observed behaviors, answers to other questions, nonverbal cues, and clues
from the environment, such as the titles of books on shelves. One of the most
critical tasks in the modeling of personas is identifying goals and expressing
them succinctly: Each goal should be expressed as a simple sentence.
User goals and cognitive processing
Norman's ideas provide an articulated structure for modeling user responses to
product and brand an a rational context for many intuitions long held by
professional designer:
Visceral is the most immediate level of processing. Here we react to a
product's visual and other sensory aspects that we can perceive before
Goals 1
, significant interaction occurs. Visceral processing helps us make rapid
decisions about what is good, bad, safe, or dangerous. This is one of the
most exciting types of human behavior, and. one of the most challenging to
effectively support with digital products.
Behavioral is the middle level of processing. It lets us manage simple,
everyday behaviors. According to Norman, these constitute the majority of
human activity. Norman states-and rightly so-that historically, interaction
design and usability practices have nearly exclusively addressed this level
of cognitive processing. Behavioral processing can enhance or inhibit both
lower-level visceral reactions and higher-level reflective responses.
Conversely, both visceral and reflective processing
can enhance or inhibit behavioral processing.
Reflective is the least immediate level of processing. It involves conscious
consideration and reflection on past experiences. Reflective processing can
enhance or inhibit behavioral processing but has no direct access to
visceral reactions. This level of cognitive processing is accessible only via
memory, not through direct interaction or perception. The most interesting
aspect of reflective processing as it relates to design is that, through
reflection, we can integrate our experiences with designed artifacts into
our broader life experiences and, over time, associate meaning and value
with the artifacts themselves.
Designing for visceral response
Designing for the visceral level means designing what the senses initially
perceive, before any deeper involvement with a product or artifact occurs. For
most of us, that means designing visual appearance and motion, although
sound can also play a role-think of the distinctive Mac power-up chord. People
designing devices may design for tactile sensations as well.
A misconception often arises when visceral-level design is discussed: that
designing for visceral response is about designing beautiful things. Battlefield
software and radiation-therapy systems are just two examples where
designing for beauty may not be the proper focus. Visceral design is actually
about designing for affect — that is, eliciting the appropriate psychological or
emotional response for a particular context-rather than for aesthetics alone.
Goals 2
Understanding goals
If personas provide the context for sets of observed behaviors, goals are the
drivers behind those behaviors. User goals serve as a lens through which
designers must consider a product's functions. The product's function and
behavior must address goals via task. Remember, tasks are only a means to an
end; goals are that end.
Goals motivate usage patterns
People's or personas' goals motivate them to behave as they do. Thus, goals
don't just provide an answer to why and how personas want to use a product.
Goals also can serve as shorthand in the designer's mind for the sometimes
complex behaviors in which a persona engages and, therefore, for their tasks
as well.
Goals should be inferred from qualitative data
You usually can't ask a person what his goals are directly. Either he'll be unable
to articulate them, or he'll be inaccurate or even imperfectly honest. People
simply are unprepared to answer such self-reflective questions accurately.
Therefore, designers and researchers need to carefully reconstruct goals from
observed behaviors, answers to other questions, nonverbal cues, and clues
from the environment, such as the titles of books on shelves. One of the most
critical tasks in the modeling of personas is identifying goals and expressing
them succinctly: Each goal should be expressed as a simple sentence.
User goals and cognitive processing
Norman's ideas provide an articulated structure for modeling user responses to
product and brand an a rational context for many intuitions long held by
professional designer:
Visceral is the most immediate level of processing. Here we react to a
product's visual and other sensory aspects that we can perceive before
Goals 1
, significant interaction occurs. Visceral processing helps us make rapid
decisions about what is good, bad, safe, or dangerous. This is one of the
most exciting types of human behavior, and. one of the most challenging to
effectively support with digital products.
Behavioral is the middle level of processing. It lets us manage simple,
everyday behaviors. According to Norman, these constitute the majority of
human activity. Norman states-and rightly so-that historically, interaction
design and usability practices have nearly exclusively addressed this level
of cognitive processing. Behavioral processing can enhance or inhibit both
lower-level visceral reactions and higher-level reflective responses.
Conversely, both visceral and reflective processing
can enhance or inhibit behavioral processing.
Reflective is the least immediate level of processing. It involves conscious
consideration and reflection on past experiences. Reflective processing can
enhance or inhibit behavioral processing but has no direct access to
visceral reactions. This level of cognitive processing is accessible only via
memory, not through direct interaction or perception. The most interesting
aspect of reflective processing as it relates to design is that, through
reflection, we can integrate our experiences with designed artifacts into
our broader life experiences and, over time, associate meaning and value
with the artifacts themselves.
Designing for visceral response
Designing for the visceral level means designing what the senses initially
perceive, before any deeper involvement with a product or artifact occurs. For
most of us, that means designing visual appearance and motion, although
sound can also play a role-think of the distinctive Mac power-up chord. People
designing devices may design for tactile sensations as well.
A misconception often arises when visceral-level design is discussed: that
designing for visceral response is about designing beautiful things. Battlefield
software and radiation-therapy systems are just two examples where
designing for beauty may not be the proper focus. Visceral design is actually
about designing for affect — that is, eliciting the appropriate psychological or
emotional response for a particular context-rather than for aesthetics alone.
Goals 2
