Empathy is (quote) “the capacity to understand what another person is experiencing from within the other person's frame of reference, i.e., the capacity to place oneself in another's shoes”.
Putting yourself in other people’s shoes
If you work on a piece of software, be it as a developer, a designer or a manager, then in your frame of reference, your software is the center of the world. It’s very tempting to think that in principle, people really would like to use your software, and that UX issues can be solved by improving the existing UI. Which isn’t wrong per se – after all, careful wording of UI texts, meaningful placement and spacing of UI elements does work wonders. On the other hand, it’s easy to fall into the trap of tweaking things up to no end instead of questioning the overall interaction, i.e. “lipstick on a pig”.
In the frame of reference of the user, your software is just a thing that helps him/her to get things done. Users usually don’t actually want to use your software. They want to reach a specific goal and they know or least suspect that your software may be a way (or: one way) to achieve the desired result. That result is important to the user, not the software itself.
If a user has problems with the software, that user will not necessarily think “oh, how much I’d like to use this excellent piece of software, I think I’ll read the tutorial”. No; in the user’s frame of reference, the software is a problem. Whether the user solves the problem (e.g. by putting more effort in learning the software) or avoids it (by using a different software or no software at all) depends on the assumed outcome and how valuable it is to the user.
Excercise in empathy: Is it worth learning git?
Let’s take a little detour: The distributed version control system (DVCS) called “git” is a complicated piece of software that draws criticism and ridicule on one hand, but is powerful enough to be in widespread use on the other hand. The situation in today’s software development is pretty simple: If you need to do the things that git does very well and/or if you (intend to) work on a project that is using git, you take the plunge and learn it, period.
I do not use git (at the time of this writing). At work, I use the company-provided TFS, so I don’t need git there. And at home I chose Mercurial many years ago, at a time when git wasn’t that popular on Windows yet.
If you are an avid git user, it is a perfect excercise in empathy to think about the reasons why I haven’t switched yet. You have to forget about the reasons why you love git and keep my frame of reference in mind.
I use Mercurial for my (closed source) hobby projects, working both on my desktop at home and my laptop on the road. I spend quite time time on my hobby projects, but this time of course is limited (other hobbies, time with the wife, etc.). Switching the version control system takes away from that time; time that I could use to write that new feature that I have in my head for so long.
So in this case, the outcome of switching isn’t valuable enough. Imagine you had written a tool for a Mercurial-to-git repository conversion and would wonder whether a blue button or a green button in your tool’s UI would increase the probability of me switching – that would be the wrong question caused by the wrong frame of reference.
The ability to leave your current point of view for a moment and to put yourself in other people’s shoes is a highly valuable skill. Of course it does not mean that you have to agree with the other point of view (otherwise police profilers would all have to be serial killers), but leave your experiences, opinions and judgements out of the equation.
Empathy in software development
Virtually all software projects have a limited budget. You have to prioritize – you cannot implement all features you’d like, you cannot make everything perfectly usable, you cannot create the perfect user experience.
If you want to design the user interface for your software, you have to decide where to spend your money. Of course you can and should talk to your users, but that’s not always easy and/or economically feasible. And you obviously have to make many decisions without direct feedback. Understanding the point of view of the user, having the empathy to forget your own ego will help you a lot.
In the UI, you want to make things simple. To achieve that:
- Understand that everything you show on the screen is an obstacle on the way to achieving a specific goal: Even helpful information on the screen has to understood, and decisions require thinking about the consequences.
- Remember that the cognitive load of a UI is much higher when you open it as a user twice a week vs. when you click through it over and over again as a developer/UX specialist.
- Try to “forget” the background information that you have – and accept that you won’t fully succeed. Still, it helps you to find the most obvious problems e.g. in confusing and/or misleading UI texts.
- (And maybe read the book “Simple and Usable” by Giles Colborne for more on dealing with complexity)
At the same time, you cannot make everything simple. And it doesn’t necessarily has to be.
Take Excel for example. The number of Excel sheets created by non-IT-people that drive business processes across the world is amazing (and a bit frightening, but that’s a different story). Many of these pretty complex sheets were created by people without a formal Excel training course. They somehow learned to use the application by themselves, e.g. by committing the unthinkable act of reading the online help manual (gasp!).
This is a great example that people do not necessarily give up easily when facing complexity. It’s just a matter of how much they are motivated by the promise of achieving their goals.
It’s not always easy to predict when users put in extra effort, and when not. That’s why it is so important to talk to actual users to find out more about their goals, desires and fears.
For typical UI interactions, experiences with non-IT-people among friends and relatives are – if you observe carefully and look for patterns – a great source for developing empathy with users.
When developing e.g. business software, even a single user interview can provide valuable information about processes, office politics, who should not be able to do what without somebody else checking first, etc. This information then helps you when making empathy-based decisions. Nothing can replace testing in the real world, but a little empathy can make a huge difference and move your user interface from “awful” to “good enough”.