ChangeOrder

Totally Loaded: How to Keep Your Users Waiting

Wait a minute. I mean, 20 seconds at least. Hold on... idea's almost here. Meanwhile, would you focus on the spinning circle I've included above and think happy thoughts?

OK, stop! Blog post loaded.

While we may think that the age of AJAX and the Flash/Silverlight preloader has ushered in a new era of more immersive and reactive user experiences, we still have light years to travel in how we manage expectations around wait times when content loads in a web browser.

And this post is a quick attempt to summarize some ways of thinking about wait times in the ideal user experience—and documenting those wait times in advance of development.

Short URLs, Say Hello to Marketing

Want some http://co.ke/tonite?

If you're investing in sending out a high volume of tweets for yourself or your company -- and you happen to possess a fairly rabid fan base -- it would be interesting to explore if you'd receive more click-throughs to your tweets as a result of vanity short URLs.

Doing Less with More: The Elegance of Denovation

Are you looking to create the next killer Web site or app? Perhaps you should start by denovating.

Elegant Web experiences mingle utility with a spirit of "denovation" -- a word from Jeremy Alexis, who defines the term as "the attempt to simplify or reduce the number of products without reducing the service performed. Denovation provides a clear path to elegance."

Successful Web sites and applications, well-tended by humans, naturally lend themselves to a denovative approach. You can shed unnecessary or cumbersome features and pages to create a firmer focus on a user's greatest needs. Much like pruning a tree in order to preserve its health, a site whose growth is managed in this way can maintain its systemic and formal elegance over time.

Web sites and apps need to evolve as user behaviors change. In this fashion, the Internet conforms to the same natural rules as humans because these billions of pages are created by humans and fed by humans. So if we view elegant Web sites as being organic in nature, then we can read "denovation" as a form of natural selection. Features whose level of use fall at the very far end of the long tail should be pruned.

Reducing features also has an added benefit: you gain more space in which to evoke positive feeling, not cognitive friction. Can you imagine if they did such a thing with, say, Microsoft Word? I think the overall level of anger in today's society would drop substantially...

Every Word Counts

On the restaurant's Web site: penne pasta, seared oyster mushrooms, greens, basil, reggiano.

At the actual restaurant: penne pasta, winter greens, alfredo.

Not much difference, right?

Except that I was totally starving. I'd walked ten minutes out of my way in the bitter cold, just because this walk-up's food was totally killer. And they didn't say on their Web site the magic word: "alfredo."

I'm not a totally persnickety eater. I have no problem with a little cream on my noodles. They may have run out of ingredients and made a substitution in a pinch.

But what I thought I was eating for lunch wasn't exactly what I'd expected. I'd had in mind an olive oil-based sauce with shaved cheese on top... or maybe with a hint of tomato snuck into the pot while they were making a reduction.. and so on..

You've had this feeling too. This is exactly what happens when your copy on your Web site isn't precise.

"Carpe Diem: Attention, Awareness, & Interaction Design" by Dan Saffer

Here are the slides from the kickass keynote given by Dan Saffer of Kicker Studios at Interaction'09. This is the video that Dan references at the start of the presentation:

Interaction'09 | Day 2: How Should We Show Awareness?

This second day of the IxDA's annual conference was stellar. And I have few words to share, as I'm still processing the massive number of sessions that were crammed into the day. However, through the day, I copied down the following quotes from the presenters. If you've got your own favorites based on the sessions that you saw, add them!

Robert Fabricant, Frog Design

"Interaction design is not about computing technology. Technology is not our medium. Behavior is our medium.... Sustainability is a problem of behavior. Sustainability = our problem."

Nathan Moody, Stimulant

"Virtual keyboards suck."

Jon Kolko, Frog Design

"I saw this + I know this = Insight + design pattern = Design idea."

Michael Salamon

Instead of a quote, download his simple presentation about Gestalt at http://www.michaelsalamon.com/ixd09.

Camille Moussette

Speaking about how to put together haptic and multimodal interactions: "Use the world to control the world." Don't think you have to go digital to sketch out an interaction idea.

Dan Saffer, Kicker Studios

The real shining star of today's presentations, just because it was such a needed kick in the ass for our profession. Dan had a long, long list of the things that we can do to show more awareness as interaction designers. I hope that video of this keynote is made available. Some of my favorite quotes:

Stop looking for the magic bullet.
Instead of "design thinking," let's think and make.
Stop fetishizing simplicity.
Don't forget that for most, the interface is the system.
Stop waiting for permission.
You already know everything you need to know to design the future.

Interaction'09 | Day 1: Please Confirm or Deny Your Involvement

Do we deny the overall state of the world in order to create things that fit people's immediate lives -- thereby confirming their behavior and point of view -- or do we urge those people to change their behavior so they don't need those things at all?

This is one of the major themes I've seen boil up from my first full day of the Interaction'09 Conference: this consideration (or denial) of fit.

Spotted in Seattle: DC Web Stencil Kit

My friends over at Design Commission sent me one of these Web stencil kits for the holidays this year, and I'm totally hooked. You can now buy one of your own through their Web site for $19.95 + tax/shipping, which gets you a stencil, a pad of grid paper, and a mechanical pencil.

I'm looking forward to seeing what these guys are going to make for next Christmas. Perhaps an IA stencil?

Avoid the Architect's Fallacy

When we talk about the processes necessary to create a very large Web system, it will get technical. And when you're selling a Web system to a client that doesn't understand all things technical, it's tempting to make things simple. Just think of it in real-world terminology, like you're designing and building a house. Draw up the blueprints, hire the builder, pick up the wood from the Home Depot, and hammer it together with some contractors. Sign on the dotted line and we'll get cracking.

Well, that kind of analogy isn't quite appropriate for building complex Web systems, and makes things harder in the long run with a less sophisticated client. Sure, we have our information architecture and our wireframes, our technical briefs and database designs, our UI comps and our testing plans. But if we've done our job well, we haven't made a house. A Web system is an organism. A brochureware site that won't be touched for years is a tract home in Denver.

Please avoid this metaphor in your proposals. It makes it sound like you're just selling them a product. And you aren't.

Tripping Over the Waterfall

Many designers, when they get a strong business process around their studio practice, like to stick to the waterfall. There are clear boundaries for how each deliverable is presented, the client has a set amount of time to respond with feedback, and everything hums along on its merry way until the final piece is printed, goes live, etc. For trivial projects, the waterfall is just fine.

Then there are the rest of your projects: the ones that seem to veer off cliff after cliff of unconsidered demands. The projects that strain, and very often break, the carefully laid schedules and plans that protect you and your client from late work and overbilled projects. Waiter, did I order the scope creep du jour?

Most often, I've been watching these situations arise because the actual deliverables -- the Web site we were tasked to create -- was simplified into a list of pages. Such an itemized list showed a fundamental misunderstanding about what we were tasked to create. Not a Web site. A Web system.

If You Build It, They Won't Come

Creating a "world-class online destination" will not assure an audience for your Web site. This bears repeating, over and over again, to each and every one of your clients. The rules have already changed.

I continue to see companies devising elegant, well-laid plans for crafting quality Web sites catering to niche audiences that get smacked down by the sheer volume of highly-relevant content out there on the Web.

You can't put a Web site up nowadays without extraordinary plans to promote it: through great content, smart search ads, a social networking strategy, and most importantly, very active efforts by real people -- not PR departments -- that can create real relationships and connect with the people controlling the conversation.

You don't make a Web site. You make a place where humans connect with humans. It just happens to be with language and code. All this Web 2.0 stuff is just like a telephone that does the dishes and can tell you who the King of Spain was in 1822.

Playing with Google's first index spawned this whole line of thinking. In the good old days, if you created a Web site about how you love horny toads, you were probably the best damn site about toads if you were feeling lucky. No longer. The battle for relevance will only continue to scale exponentially, as borne out by my infographic above. Each new site is just a little pinprick in the ever-expanding void. And I think being relevant and having killer content just isn't good enough anymore.

So I have a proposal that will make UX people cringe, but it's a holistic measure that will help you satisfy your clients outside making Web systems that surprise and delight users.

When when you start the planning phase of your next project, sneak a little area into your wireframe that talks about the following: how you want people to get to each page, and why they'll want to go there. It's something I almost never see discussed until a site is in build, when you've got "the luxury of time" -- but I think that's a weak strategy. Think it out in advance. Let it iterate with the system you're creating. Get holistic on why every feature connects back to your community, and if it doesn't, kill it.

This may require forcing your content strategist, copywriter, or client into a corner to hash out a massive tangle of detail. But you need to build some roads to your fancy hotel in the sticks. Otherwise, how will they know it's even there?

Party Browsing

Now that everyone's got a snazzy browser in their iPhone, it seems like the Internet has become our real-world intelligence confirmation unit. I can't recall the last time I was at a party or eating dinner with some friends, and when a point of consideration came up, out came the phone for instant Wikipedia validation. Web browsing is now social, just forced through a straw.

This kind of collaborative browsing, while still fresh and new, seems to be an evolution of co-browsing activities such as Medium and other fairly new sites on the scene. But what I'm really interested in is the following:

How do you make browsing the Internet a real-world, at home party activity? How do you work together in one physical space to assemble and share entertainment and knowledge? Do you have multiple input devices? A giant touch screen with a natural user interface? Do you control it with your mobile device? It's not good enough to each have our own Internet appliance. We need one appliance that we can throw all of our thoughts onto, like a digital whiteboard mixed up with a browser, to mush it all together. Just imagine the overload of great stuff, all there on one big screen.

Of course, then we'd need a drinking game to go with it as well.

We were having a great time party surfing this past weekend. When having friends over for dinner recently, our postprandial activity consisted of calling out links we'd recently enjoyed, then surfing to the appropriate URL and sharing the information out among the group. After a while, practically anything one of us said became a URL to check out.

Big technology and game companies, get right on it. I'm sure there are at least twelve people that will pay $500k for such technology in their palatial homes.

Web 9.0: Why You Should Care

Prognostication -- an eternal quest for the scent of the new. Imagining the future, in punditry, with the hopes that the world will turn out just like how you've imagined it. Then, claim your foresight is hindsight as well. Watch where the birds cluster as they fly overhead, towards the setting sun.

What's more difficult than fortune-telling? Doing something that incites the actual change. Or, what's more likely, to observe a change already in progress and shunt it down an alternative path that will lead to an even greater change. Designers are expert in molding artifacts and ideas in this matter, iteratively and sometimes explosively -- and in a strange kind of symbiosis, often changing the maker in the process. We spend so much time creating the work, and little to no ink is spilled describing how designers are changed by the process as well.

Give Your Phone the Finger

Multi-touch, gestural interfaces are the new black. And for the next four to five years, they're the immediate future of our ever-evolving human/computer interactions. But for us designers, I'd like to project a little further into the future and discern an even more likely scenario: true sense integration on mobile and desktop computing devices.

As designers, we usually only get to consider how media looks, sounds, and feels in a mildly tactile sense. In the future, we'll be able to consider these variables at a much greater depth and dimension than that of a static, unchanging substrate. I also wouldn't be surprised if smell and taste gained much greater prominence in the designer's arsenal.

Specifically, there are certain kinds of interactions regarding mobile and desktop devices that don't seem very far off from a technology standpoint. They do, however, require weaning us off the idea of doing our computing through a screen-topped device with a gestural input mechanism. Multi-touch interfaces don't have a ton of utility if you have disabilities, and definitely don't exploit other mechanisms we humans have for conveying and receiving information.

Here's what I'm dreaming of...

An earpiece that doubles as a phone and really understands what I want.

I don't always need to see the Internet to be able to grasp the information from it.

If you're looking to access the visual Internet, the iPhone dominates the field for ease of use and clarity and will likely be the gold standard for some time. But what if I'm going out on the town and don't want that phone in my pocket? Make the earpiece a phone as well, and pair it with trainable natural-language voice recognition software driven through the cell-phone network that learns my voice, my needs, and my quirky slang.

I could imagine the earpiece phone recognizing commands such as "give me turn-by-turn directions to Pacific Place," "pay my cell phone bill with my credit card," or "text my friend Joanie that I'll be twenty minutes late" and it will be smart enough to fulfill your actions without any major hiccups.

This is a true expression of cloud computing separate of the desktop and is where Google is starting to lay the ground with services such as 1-800-GOOG-411, which they claim is a not-for-profit venture, but makes a heck of a lot of sense in their long term strategy for having a universe of cloud-driven Internet tools that have great utility for a broad audience and further help them sell search advertising.

Knowing how excited people get about these kinds of interfaces, I could see them being smart enough to recognize patterns of behavior and quietly prompt you: "Did you mean to pass by the cereal aisle? I know you like Lucky Charms." (Okay, that would be scary...)

A touch interface that communicates through sense of touch, not screen activity.

What's the weather going to be? I go to the weather service on my phone, and when I touch the screen to see what the upcoming weather's going to be like through the weekend, the surface of the touch interface gets hotter or colder depending on the time period my finger hovers over. Sounds frilly, right? Sure, if you aren't blind. Blind people should be able to ask their phone, "What's the temperature going to be tomorrow?" and have the phone adjust its heat output in relation to today's temperature to indicate the relative difference.

Another example. Let's say I'm considering taking SR-520 over I-90 to get to the Eastside. I ask my phone (using my voice interface) how the traffic is on SR-520. The steering wheel gets harder by 30%. Should I take I-90 then? The steering wheel softens dramatically. There are other ways of getting data instead of me barking orders to my phone/car/computer, then having it bark at me a series of choppily-voiced words, which are interrupting my enjoyment of the new MGMT album.

Yes, the multi-touch gestural interface is very cool and gets rid of that mousy thing on the desk. But I want more sense out of my touch interactions.

Forget the idea of the phone altogether. It's part of the devices around me.

I know phone manufacturers want to make money from our phone networks that require devices that earn money for large publicly traded companies through the use of night and weekend minutes... but doesn't that idea sound... quaint?

I'd be perfectly happy if phone calls followed me from device to device around me, instead of me having to carry a device around in my pocket. Sure, there is the love that I'd lavish on a phone as part of my technological pocket arsenal next to the iPod, the (soon to be smart) wallet, my house keys, my sketch notebook, and my pack of mints. But I'm of the "less is more" camp, and less means no phone whenever possible.

Since I'm Gen X, I'm cool with being a little out of touch. I'm already seeing that use of cell phones will stratify, with phones being generated for the youth as part of their uniform, while from Gen X on up, it's seen as a necessity, not as an entertaining activity. Higher-end luxury phones will be wispy, while phones for the youth will be badges.

But really, I'd like to get rid of the word phone altogether. Or at least call this new category of devices something else. The whole beauty of the term "mobile device" is that you don't have to say it's a phone/MP3 player/GPS/Knife/Wii remote. Let's just tack the word "multi-sensory" onto mobile devices and hope that the device manufacturers can pay it off with something that delivers some real utility to us technology junkies.

Common Flaws of Web Site Search Design

I fondly remember the good old days of mediocre search technology, where you could design a Web site with the assumption that people would expend at least a few dozen seconds combing through your site's pages to see if there was anything of interest.

Nowadays, you only have a matter of seconds to grab a site visitor's interest, and that generally consists of the following actions: 1) scanning the page for a few moments for headlines of interest; 2) thinking if there's anything on the site that isn't exposed that they would like to find, and 3) typing a keyword into your search bar. Not much else, unless they land on a page in your site from a search, and you'd better hope your information architecture is strong enough to orient them.

Knowing this is the default behavior for a good number of your site visitors makes the design and placement of your site search tools of critical importance for a functional user experience. Users expect the quickest paths between their need and a correct result -- they want the bullet train, not the sailboat.

Here's some common UX design gaffes related to search I've noticed recently, clearly documented, and tried to avoid in my own work.

1. Placing filters or pull-down options in a simple search. Ready to go find all the content related to, say, corgis? People have grown to expect just a box and a submit button if they're executing a self-guided search. Don't add pull-down menus or anything else that allows people to filter content independent of keywords on your plain text search box. Put those features in your advanced search functionality for those users who want to get crafty with selecting different types of context and don't know the shortcuts like "grouping words together" in the search box, etc.

2. Changing controls from search to result. Very dangerous. Users expect consistency from their search experience and the functionality that they're presented with. When flipping from the initial query to your results screen, your search box shouldn't change functionality. If you offer an advanced search, it should always be an option to toggle on, or never be an option for the end user. Otherwise, you're going to confuse them and/or piss them off.

3. Not making your search criteria explicit. Your search page design should always foreground what the user sought before any search listings. It's not enough to re-render the same search terms within the search box. There must be a listing of what they asked for before you give them what they asked for, and with a real level of prominence in the visual design. I liken it to placing an order at a restaurant. When your meal arrives, your waitron usually says, "So, you ordered the cheeseburger with avocado, right?" Same principle.

4. Over/Underbuilding the advanced search. If you do offer the user an advanced search, consider clustering different search methods on one screen, then collapsing them and having the user choose which methods they want to combine to search your site. This allows the user to expose types of data they're wishing to sift and use those in concert. Google does this fairly well. Don't implement it like the advanced search on Windows Live which forces you to string together your advanced search criteria one at a time. Fewer interactions foregrounded in one place will equal a better user experience.

We Are Web Technology

Recently, I had an idea for a classy text interface that I thought would revolutionize how people used the Internet. Within five minutes of online research, I discovered that someone else had come up with the same idea... in 1986.

The lure of Web 2.0, a.k.a user-centered computing mechanics, is finally beginning to outstrip the humble origins of HTML and its basis in a formatting language for articles and other educational ephemera. But we have many decades-worth of ideas within the coffers of both academia and popular business related to interface design just yearning to step onto the stage of the Web. And I'll wager that it will take another two to three decades to reach the point where Internet users are comfortable with these advances. They will revolutionize how we engage with and consume information.

The initial beauty of hypertext was its ability to channel and shape large volumes of information and allow linking to similar types of content. The real revolution to occur in user-centered Web systems has little to do with typesetting content, and everything to do with contextual organization and passing knowledge through conversation.

Let's Create a Little Context

I want a fluid markup language that is easily usable by the layperson that automatically allows us to build intelligent, intuitive relationships between different types of content. I'm not talking about XML, per se. XML is the enabling factor that will encapsulate all Web content. I'm talking about the browsers that parse XML and spit out the Web pages we love so much in fresher, more usable ways.

For example: In the future, and hopefully the near future, I would hope to see Web pages and/or browsers where, if you are reading on a topic of interest, the article could reconfigure based on areas that you linger upon, offering up topics that may be of interest in a separate sidebar.

Or, if you click on a link within the paragraph, instead of being tossed into another browser window or tab, a secondary channel on the page opens to enclose and accommodate that content, allowing you to choose a path of inquiry in-line before punting to another location.

This would require sifting and sorting of content elements that goes beyond what we call content management. It would require a method of relational sorting and artificial intelligence that may not exist yet in the consumer space, though I have a feeling it already exists in some form at Xerox PARC or Apple, but is being withheld from the general market as it is not seen as "usable" yet.

DHTML and AJAX are allowing us to add another layer of context within Web pages, so we can explore deeper levels of information within a single Web page. And yet it's still not enough, and that kind of functionality is usually custom-built at great expense. We're still bookmarking pages (socially or otherwise) and leafing through the online equivalent of a magazine. A well-designed magazine that evolves over time in response to my activity, mind you, but still a magazine. Most related links are hand-coded in, and companies like Amazon and Netflix have invested millions in creating automated systems that create context. Bring their systems to the masses. Organize us relationally.

Either that, or rely more heavily on the content management system that we call The Human Brain.

That's What I'm Talking About

What stands in the way of this contextual method of organizing and navigating Web content? Ourselves. Humans have yet to evolve to the point that they can move beyond the static page en masse. Perhaps the next generation of Web users will be able to grok this method of information navigation without feeling like the ground is about to give way beneath their feet.

It's clear that the Internet has turned into the Mariana Trench of human knowledge. Trawling that almost infinite depth of information has become entirely impersonal. We don't control how we reach the things that we need, and we can't easily control how that information is presented. When couched in these terms, it's easy to understand why it's so hard to create a Web system that users would want to experience.

Novels, essays, articles, blog posts, diaries, text messages -- these are all fixed forms that govern how we apprehend content and structure how we consume them. When we compare the longevity of those forms to a fluid content bucket that can't be passed along or referred to another person without changing in some way, you can only imagine the fear it would strike in an everyday user. Just give me a page with what I want, or a search engine that can find me what I want within two clicks (unless I'm feeling lucky). Seeking knowledge, fulfilling task, receiving information, end stop.

Interestingly, if you think about how people seek knowledge independent of the Internet -- through real-life queries and conversation with peers that have reservoirs of knowledge -- then you'd think we'd be spending more time creating Web systems that mimic that human-to-human mode of information acquisition, that add shape and color around information that we seek. I see this as not Web 3.0, or even 5.0. Until there are heuristics that can resolve these levels of complexity in a piece of content, and spit out a relatively appropriate answer the majority of the time, this technology will be a novelty used by dozens.

Thankfully, we have the time and the depth of material out on the Internet to use as our laboratory, as well as the new explosion of smart devices and micro-computers that will worm their way into the fabric of our everyday activities. By the time this type of contextual navigation reaches the masses, we'll be so plugged in that we'll probably just be querying people instead of computers to receive what we need. Oh, wait -- I just got a text message from a friend asking me if I know a good place to find high-quality dark chocolate...

[UPDATE: Check out powerset.com for a taste of what I'm talking about... currently it works with a subset of information-dense sites like Wikipedia.]

And Now, an Interaction from our Sponsor

You're watching the new episode of Lost on abc.com, and during the break, a little app from Google pops up that says you have two new messages on your Gmail account, there's a hurricane blasting its way through Peru, and your RSS reader has two articles you'd probably want to read before Jack and Kate start to make out.

"Entertainment with utility!" That'll be the rallying cry of the new breed of advertising married to interactive television.

Wait--don't we watch TV, go out to movies, and listen to music to escape from reality?

Definitely not. Anyone who has a young daughter or son, or has spent time observing TV-watching behavior, knows that we are now experiencing an unprecedented level of layering. Using their computer to sift the Internet for that next hot band, watching a so-so sitcom on their flat-screen TV out of the corner of their eye, chatting on their Bluetooth headset with their BFF, and maybe even having a little snack they just whipped up in the microwave. Simultaneously. I see people trying to cram as many interactions into each minute as possible.

So my thought is simple: layer the interactive experience so all those things happen within the computer. Or the TV. Or mash them up into one device. Give the audience the options to select how many layers they want. And integrate the online applications they use most into the advertising, creating utility in a domain usually reserved for talking dogs and men being chased by women due to their body spray. I'm already watching a TV show for entertainment. Make some of my advertising useful.

Sounds easy, and I'm sure Apple is already all over this in their secret R&D labs. But whomever cracks this code and creates the tightest integration will win: for consumers, for advertisers, and for those who create the platforms to deliver this kind of quality experience for their audience.

Sorry, We're Clopen Source

My brilliant colleague Carrie Byrne came up with the title of this post and the term. I'm just the messenger.

Clopen source is the spirit of open-source application creation -- crowdsourcing, product development by a vocal community, free sharing of information to encourage innovation separate of a technology provider -- with very strict boundaries that ensure the profit of the key patent-holders. The key boundary is the device that holds the applications.

Clopen source means more than just having a community of users contribute to the success of a technology or device. It requires mechanisms for profit as part of its motive. And it requires purchase of a specific product or service to play ball. This ain't your father's UNIX, which is really the last frontier for true open source goodness.

Apple Software Development Kit (SDK) for the iPhone? Clopen source. More apps on their phone means more minutes used, more iPhones sold, and more SDKs sold to third parties. Create a community that develops apps for you, then monetize it. This has been the game on all smart device platforms, until Android came along.

Google's Android OS for smart devices. At first, doesn't seem like clopen source. Google is making the device OS 100% open source for developers, but the platform still needs to be monetized. So, who wins here? Phone sellers push more units at similar prices to Windows Mobile phones without paying for licensing, while Google makes more money off mobile search and advertising tied into the apps. This would be clopen source at its heart. You can't just give it away.

Free code, or even full applications, that drive your Web site? Clopen source. Using the code encourages the adoption of a specific server-side technology and the use of a development platform. Just choose your flavor and its overall software cost to you.

Neuros OSD, which lets you archive your DVD and video content? Clopen source. The box runs on Linux and Neuros encourages developers to improve the device's feature set. But it's a closed community, and you have to fork over for the box to play ball.

I don't think there's anything wrong with clopen source. It seems to be the best way to make money off interactive technologies in today's "free economy."

In many ways, clopen source is the great hope of keeping ahead of the curve and advancing the next killer app. By having product audiences have access to personally improving company technologies, and allowing those companies to absorb that learning into their own products, will have massive impacts on the speed of technological growth in immature markets like mobile computing, smart device generation, and other technologies that blur the lines between product categories.

Effective Design Strategies for Rich Media Ads

Rich media advertising has morphed from a simple way to create a more engaging banner or skyscraper placement into little mini-sites within a larger publication, complete with streaming video, games that visitors can play, built-in data capture and referral mechanisms, and other sophisticated interactive elements that five years ago would have required its own Web page and heavy development chops.

The following trends, which I noticed in recent online ads deployed by EyeWonder, exhibit many of the hallmarks of compelling user experience and design for rich media placements.

Build Your Concept from Real-World Examples

It's easy to fly some copy into your ad, show a nice photo of your product, and toss in a big button that says "Buy Now" with a low price next to it.

What's much harder is finding a real-world experience and marrying it to your product. One recent online ad that caught my eye was for the show DogFights on the History Channel. Upon rolling over the placement, the navigation of the ad is like flying your own fighter jet and locking onto a target. Upon "shooting" one of the planes you're chasing, you reveal an area of the ad. Try it out here.

Strong advertising like this doesn't require a traditional menu for navigation, or any of the common UI features you'd expect in the microsite. The behavior of the navigation is instead more like a video game -- which is an interesting analogy, since a fighter jet video game is still borrowing from the real world experience of flying a jet. (Not that I've ever flown one...)

I also love this mini-Space Invaders that my colleagues at Worktank made for the HTC Advantage, which is always great fun and can lead to some solid click-through.

Ease Your Audience Into the Virtual Experience

If you're designing a rich-media advertisement, generally you're going to disguise some kind of extended experience in a banner or skyscraper, presenting some call to action asking someone to roll over the ad. Smooth the transition into the experience, and reward them with the depth of it. Otherwise, they aren't going to interact with it over a long period of time -- and gain more interest in purchasing your product or service.

Here's an example that's less like a game and more like going on vacation. Different areas of content are part of a portion of an island in the Galapagos that you can "visit" when you expand open the placement. Try the demo here.

Both of these rich media ads are experiential in nature, matching up to the content of the television programs they're advertising. How do you translate this kind of approach into more traditional advertising for products and services? Here's a great example that raises interest while foregrounding a solid product.

Make Pass-Along Easy, and Integral to the Concept

The following example from Nissan hits the two points above and completely integrates referrals. You can use various keys on your keyboard to trigger breakdancing moves from the on-screen avatar. If you press record, the ad unit tracks your moves and allows you to forward the "movie" to your friends. This ad works like gangbusters, using some really smart ActionScripting create a big impact, and create some big awareness around the car for the right audience. Try it here.

Channel Marketing + Sales = Branding

I love it when marketing managers talk about how it's their job to help funnel leads to salespeople, and that they can't control anything after that magical transference of responsibility.

I also enjoy it when salespeople talk about how they spend too much time sifting through weak leads from those same marketing managers to close a sale.

Or when I enter a store after being enticed by a compelling marketing promotion and hot price on some product I can't wait to purchase (phone, climbing gear, and chocolate all come to mind), only to be ignored by the salespeople.

The truth is, we're all in this together: designers, marketing managers, and salespeople. And we have to work together to create compelling communications that support our brands, drive through sales, and ensure that our customers keep coming back.

You'd think the big dogs in the consumer marketing space would have wised up to this new truism of the Information Age: you can't assume that people will like your brand if they get stoked by great marketing and let down by poor service in any channel. There was a great post on Ideas on Ideas about this recently, related to blogs and their influence on purchasing decisions, but I think there's a broader point to be made than just bad service = big word of mouth = bad branding. Often bad service can cascade into a larger problem because of poor continuity between sales channels.

I remember being stunned as I walked through Best Buy last month, to be greeted by every single salesperson I passed. I thought I'd died and gone to heaven after so many years of terrible service there. We had dropped in to purchase a microwave for my wife's office, and they were able to direct us to options right off the bat, without having to sit there and decode the boxes to figure out which one would be the wisest purchase. We'd researched the purchase on the Internet, made sure to call ahead and ensure the products were in stock, and then were helped by a real person right on the spot to make a no-pressure purchase.

What made the experience so great?

Every single point, from Internet to phone to in-store, was high-touch. Swift. Too the point. Propelling us to the purchase, no matter where we chose to make it, and with us feeling like we were in control of the situation. In every channel.

This is the holy grail of retail. The ability to cultivate a positive experience that extends across every touch point in the sales process, from consideration to purchase to happy customer to long-term customer/company relationship.

And why is it so rare?

Because there's a weak link somewhere in the chain from product creation to marketing to sales. And most often, this is related to your channel marketing strategy not lining up.

Companies that grok this spend a lot of time refining their business process on a regular basis -- because they know it's the only way to ensure the customer experience is optimal. It doesn't always boil down to a bad marketing promotion or a bad in-store experience. Often the things that can hobble a corporation's branding efforts in the long term are all about how they do business.

Marketers like to segment out Internet, phone, in-store, email, etc. in their marketing plans and focus on increasing the effectiveness of each channel. They think about the synergy of how each channel works together to ensure a continuity of experience until a customer engages in a purchasing decision. Where necessary, they'll work around issues with legacy sales systems, weak infrastructure, wonky in-store policies, and other hurdles in the background to ensure that customers keep getting funneled into a sales decision. And this is where their brand truly suffers.

Usually one channel is less mature than another. Some companies are slam-bang great at Internet, but they are terrible in the store. Others have some of the best phone service around, but the online experience is weak. Some companies like to focus their marketing dollars on the channels that perform best, such as online, often to the detriment of hiring the killer staff that will make their in-store sales rise more swiftly.

But I digress. Let's focus on the places where channel marketing can break down, from the customer's perspective.

Customers don't expect much. But they do have real expectations when it comes to how they'll approach you -- and what kind of behavior they'll tolerate. Let me share some of these expectations with you:

• If you're going to sell something online and in a store, sell it over the phone too. Even if your business model doesn't support it. Customers expect high-touch -- unless you're Fry's Electronics -- and the sale will probably cost you less than the in-store one.
• Be ready to accommodate multiple forms of payment. In any combination.We take cash, Visa, MasterCard, and American Express. Oh, and gift cards too. But you can't use a gift card online and a credit card to cover the rest of the purchase. So you'll have to go to the store, because we can't take your purchase over the phone. Our computer system can't handle that. And the store isn't close to you. Sorry about the inconvenience.
• If you don't have it in the store / online / on the phone, secure one for your customer promptly. If you have it on the floor as a sample and it isn't in stock, don't just say: "Sorry, sir, we don't have it." Go find it at another store or have me buy it online with you and then send it to me. Or, alternatively, you could go back to talking with the other salespeople behind the counter while the 4 other customers wander around the store and, like me, eventually leave without making a purchase.
• If you say you'll call me or email me when the product comes in, actually contact me. Don't wait until I call back in a week or two, ask when said product will be in the store, and be told, "We got a big shipment in just a few days ago." This means you don't have a method for CRM within your store that carries into another channel. I wouldn't complain if you sent me an automated email that was triggered when my product was stocked.
• Don't send me to a third party to purchase it, if you can. If you make a great product, why would force me to search around for it at the mall? Sell it to me directly and make more money, via phone or Web.
• Don't think that since you carry that hot product everyone wants, you can treat me poorly in any channel. Yes, I would love that new smart phone that everyone seems to be coveting. No, I will not put up with waiting in line forever, being on hold on the phone, and/or returning over and over again to the Web site to see if it's back in stock. Take my money and send it to me when you get some in. Make it easy for me.

I think most of what I've listed here is fairly obvious and clear to most marketers. But the proof is in the performance: you need to invest in each channel appropriately, and continue analyzing the effectiveness of the customer experience in each channel, to ensure that customers aren't falling out because of inconsistent experience or overcoming your own internal struggles to improve.

In the end, what customers experience in the sales process for a consumer product will likely hold more weight than the quality of your advertising, your marketing, and sometimes even your product quality, if it's on parity with the competition.

Do you really want to risk dragging the equity of your brand down in the long-term? If you aren't retaining your current customers and helping to foster brand loyalty in the long term, then how much money are you really throwing away?