Do users Read?
An observation in how a shift in historical affordance can alter a users decision to read.
(text version)
Do users Read?
On a flight from PHL to LAX, I had the fortunate opportunity to do a bit of user observation that may help shed some light on this topic.
Before I begin, here is a little background on the user: White male in his early 50s, lawyer or related field, using a full-size iPad connected to a iPad-friendly keyboard. Let’s call him Bob.
Bob, while checking his Gmail, got a message from LinkedIn informing him of a new friend request. Bob tapped the user’s name and for some odd reason, this resulted in launching the .com in his browser rather than the native LinkedIn app.
Interesting fact about LinkedIn.com on a tablet: It is a very campaign-heavy roadblock page with a logo, headline, brand message, an x icon, and one button labeled “Get the app.”
Instantly, without reading or even visually digesting this page, Bob taps the center of his screen. Seeing no effect, Bob continues this approach several more times. Refusing to read what minimal direction there is or even orient his tapping to any actionable area of the page in frustration he returns to Gmail and again taps the user’s name. Following yet again a link to the .com rather than the native app again Bob taps and even swipes left and right in an attempt to move past this roadblock. Finally, Bob abandons both of these entry points and manually launches the native Linkedin app.
A More Complete Bob
Before we continue, let’s apply some of our observations to flush out a more complete version of Bob.
• Bob is mobile savvy; while he has yet to complete his task, he has shown proficiency in navigating his device
• Bob is task-oriented
• Bob does not read; not even the smallest amount of copy that would provide clarity and guidance to help him achieve his task
Back to Bob
With the LinkedIn app now running, what does Bob do first? Based on this more complete profile, one would assume that the first thing Bob would do is tap on the invitation utility element to gain instant access to this user request. You would be wrong. Here’s the M. Night Shyamalan moment of the story: Bob first takes the time to look at his feed. And I don’t mean just what’s above the fold. I mean his entire feed. Each entry was scanned for interest. Our user, who was profiled as a task-oriented non-reader, has suddenly become an off-task reader. Upon completing this perusal of curated interests, Bob gets back to the completion of his original task; he taps his invitation utility and successfully navigates to the user’s profile to assess whether or not he will accept the invitation.
Up until this moment, how would you assume Bob would approach this decision? A quick scan? A glance at common connections or organization affiliations? You would be wrong again. Bob took the time to read this user’s entire page, and I mean all of it. Even at the end of this assessment, Bob did not make a choice. Rather, he moved onto something else--I can only assume to mull over the social value of this connection request.
I know this is an observation of one, and I did not interview Bob about his decision tree, but I think a good takeaway from this study is:
USERS DO (NOT) READ
Users make snap judgments about whether or not “reading” is required to complete their task. For Bob, the moment that his historical affordances were stripped away, his unconscious mind determined reading was not required. Upon re-orienting himself to the familiar UI, “reading” returned as a necessary part of his experience.
