Not Unhappy is Not Happy

I wouldn’t say that I didn’t find a lack of displeasure in reading the novels of Henry James.   James packed his sentences so full of disqualifiers that, like the previous sentence, you had to read it twice and count the “not”s to figure out what he was really trying to say, and even then not quite understanding him.

I also wouldn’t say I find much pleasure in the way the same convoluted logic is applied to user experience – particularly in the way we interpret the fact that a user is unable to find a specific reason to be displeased with an experience to mean that they were, in fact, pleased.   This approach to evaluating experience is useful in enabling designers to address the problems that cause a user to be unhappy, but is not sufficient for us to implement factors that would cause them to be happy.

Perhaps I am still talking in circles … so let me separate the two:

Making Users Not Unhappy

The theory of design teaches us to recognize choices that are virtually guaranteed to make users unhappy: a lack of context, incomplete or confusing instructions, animations that distract from a task, sound of any kind, and the like.   The result is a list of “don’t”s that a designer would do well to heed to avoid making users unhappy.

The practice of design, particularly in usability testing, helps us to identify even more things that make a user unhappy.   When they pause in a task, balk, ask the proctor what they should do, and break down in tears, it is because they have come across something that makes them unhappy, and the designer comes out of the lab with a list of corrections to make that will reduce the friction that the user encounters in the course of completing a task.

But even when the designer has eliminated everything in a design that makes the user unhappy, and the pages are put into production, users still bail out at the first page.   Further investigation doesn’t turn up anything specific that is causing an obstacle that we can correct.   Everything that makes the user unhappy has been removed or replaced, and they’re still not happy.

Making Users Happy

In the same way that a lack of pain does not result in the sensation of pleasure, the lack of unhappiness does not result in the sensation of happiness.   At best, removing unhappiness results in indifference and boredom, a lack of interest that results in the abandonment of a goal.

In most online transactions, it is assumed that the user’s happiness derives from achieving the final result … by slogging through a series of steps, they place an order for an item that will arrive at their home, and when it is used, the item itself gives them happiness that compensates them for the tedium of having gone through the necessary steps to obtain it.

In a culture that values instant gratification, the demand for which is constantly growing more intense, the happiness that will eventually be experienced upon achieving an outcome as a result of having undertaken a tedious process is losing its value to motivate.   People don’t simply want a product that delivers pleasure, but a pleasant shopping experience … and pleasant in a way that is more than merely “not unpleasant.”

Happiness in the Task

So how can designers take perfectly mundane tasks and instill in them elements that make users happy during the experience?   That is a quandary – and while I haven’t quite worked it out, I suspect that there is great insight to be found in an unlikely place: game design.

Consider the experience that users have while playing with a video game: the actions of a game, when considered from a distance, are actually quite boring: there are a relatively small number of basic commands, a limited number of obstacles or “enemies,” and levels that are merely rearrangements of the same basic elements.   It all seems perfectly boring and pointless - and nothing is really achieved by winning.   You don’t get a prize or anything to carry back into the physical world.

At the same time, video game enthusiasts are kept enthralled for hours on end going through the same basic motions in different order – more to the point, they enjoy the experience of playing a game while playing, not merely by winning.  In fact, completing a game is a melancholy event, characterized by a sense of regret that the “fun” has ended.

It’s long been suggested that if designers could make a product acquisition flow as much fun as playing a video game, it would delight users to no end.   The term "gamification" is currently being bandied about, but this is merely a new label on an old idea.   It is assumed that customers would buy more often if there were a game-like retail experience – which is likely untrue for most people, and likely unhealthy in the few it affects (shopaholics and hoarders who purchase goods they do not need because they get a thrill from the buying process).  

It is likewise assumed that customers who have had a game-like experience will advocate it to others - but the success of this largely hinges on the need for the product.   There have been numerous times I've been sent a link to a "cool web site" for a product I did not need at all - I visited out of curiosity, but can't recall a single instance in which I made a purchase.

It will likely take some thinking on a nuts-and-bolts level to discover specific ways in which this can be applied - my point, for the present was that it's worthwhile to consider the practice of design, and whether removing the elements that cause users displeasure is sufficient – and begin building a case to spend the time and the budget to augment designs to include features that are proactive in creating happiness.