"The wind chime maker invites nature into collaboration."
Animism is the belief that souls or spirits exist not only in humans, but also in animals, trees, mountains, rivers, wind, weather, and other natural objects and phenomena. It's an idea that infuses philosophy and religion in countless cultures throughout history. It's also a wellspring for myths: traditional stories that explain the origin of the universe, the history of a people, and the purpose of social institutions. One of the main functions of myth is to establish models for behavior. The narratives of Prometheus, Pandora, Sisyphus, Oedipus, and Odysseus are designed to instruct. Our familiarity with these ancient stories proves the power of myth. These lessons endure. They are made to stick.
Interestingly, in modern vernacular, a myth is a false story or belief, but within their cultures of origin, myths are sacred narratives that tell truths about the past. Today, myths have lost credibility, yet they still offer the power of reflection. Through metaphor and analogy, myths reveal the story of ourselves. Heroes, tricksters, and gods are but vessels for the personification of our own hopes and fears. Myths are mirrors. They catalog patterns of experience and expectation. They remind us that what's past is prologue. More than just vivid stories of yesteryear, myths animate and act upon the future.
In design, we would do well to embed similar insight and influence in our deliverables. We need stories and sketches that bring search and discovery to life. We need principles and proverbs that capture the essence of human psychology and behavior. And we need maps and models that shape beliefs about what's possible, probable, and preferable. After all, design is inextricably invested in the future. Our research reveals the latent desire lines that inspire new products, and our prototypes engage people in spirited discussions of strategy, technology, and experience. In an era where the hard things are the soft things, our work invests ideas with substance. We transform abstract patterns and proposals into physical artifacts with sensory and emotional resonance. While our hearts are in the betterment of communication and collaboration, there's no question we're in the business of persuasion. We change minds. Our prototypes and predictions influence the future, even when they're wrong. We are the makers of maps and myths. We are entrusted with the authority to put the soul in search by making tomorrow tangible.
The design of search is a tricky business. Each project is unique. Restructuring an enterprise intranet, migrating an e-commerce experience to the mobile platform, and inventing a "new to the world" decision engine are clearly sisters of a different order. However, just as patterns of behavior and design transcend category and platform, so do our methods and deliverables. In fact, there's nothing special about search. A standard issue user experience toolbox and a bit of advanced common sense are really all we need.
For starters, we must select research methods that fit the context. Unobtrusive field observation is rarely practical, since search is generally ad hoc. But we can surely draw upon other ethnographic techniques, including interviews, questionnaires, and diary study. Classic usability testing also works well, but it's important to avoid oversimplification. Basic tasks (e.g., try to find) should be interspersed with real-world scenarios. Users must be free to search and browse. And it's often useful to ask how people would normally find the answer or solve the problem if not with this specific site or application.
Search analytics are another obvious choice. For a website, it's useful to compare the most popular internal and external queries. What's the difference between the search terms that deliver people to the site and the queries they perform when they get there? By asking this question, we often expose gaps in marketing and design that we must address by improving both search engine optimization and the site's information architecture. Of course, it's important to recognize the limits of quantitative analysis. The data tells us the terms people use, but not what they seek or whether they succeed. A mix of methods helps us to interpret the data, place anomalies in context, and begin to see the big picture.
For that reason, it's also vital to conduct internal meetings and stakeholder interviews. Since search is a multidisciplinary collaboration of design, engineering, marketing, and management, success requires that we engage participation across departments and units. Conversations should cover mission, vision, strategy, time, budget, human resources, and technology infrastructure. It's also good to ask about metrics for success and models of best practice, since these questions elicit examples that bring discussions down to earth.
During discovery, and especially in these meetings, it's important to turn the observer problem into an opportunity. Simply by being present and asking questions, we exert influence, subtle or not. The right nudges now can avert problems later. Even at this early stage, it's worth visualizing and shaping both journey and destination.
Similarly, we should invert our thinking about deliverables. Our artifacts are not just tools for persuasion; they're also vehicles for exploration. A concept map lets us reframe the problem and elicit a response. A process flow lets us wander the actual and possible paths of users in search of shortcuts and serendipity. Prototypes afford the amazing opportunity to create, play with, and learn from tangible products of the imagination. We should heed the invitation of Figure 6-2 to lay out all our deliverables in one place so we can see them in context, consider their purpose, and enjoy the experience of discovery.[17]
[17] For more on this topic, see "User Experience Deliverables," by Peter Morville and Jeffery Callender, available at http://semanticstudios.com/publications/semantics/000228.php.