Inaugural online book | Application Concepting Series No. 1



100 Ideas for Envisioning Powerful, Engaging, and Productive User Experiences in Knowledge Work

Download E-Book or Order Softcover Book



In addition to this website, Working through Screens
is available in several other formats:

    - Softcover print on demand books (NEW)

    - Free letter size .pdf (NEW)

    - Free large format .pdf

    - Free "Idea Cards" .pdf


View all Working through Screens Formats

Email List

Join our email list to receive updates about our publications:


Contact Our Consulting Studio

Contact Flashbulb Interaction to find out how we can help your team to better conceptualize and deliver your next application design.

E: info@FlashbulbInteraction.com
P: 206.280.3135

View Jacob Burghardt's profile on LinkedIn

Latest Studio Updates

From our FlashbulbUX Twitter feed:
  •  
Follow Flashbulb Interaction Studio Updates on Twitter



Feedback on Working through Screens?

Email us your thoughts or Twitter @FlashbulbUX

Application Envisioning idea
I2.
Comprehensive and Relevant Search



Knowledge workers frequently need to locate stored interaction objects and onscreen information based on a variety of parameters. Product teams can envision tailored functionality concepts for specific types of goal oriented searches, as well as flexible query assembly and results representation options for unexpected and variable search needs.






Examples from three knowledge work domains:
(Illustrated above) A financial trader uploads a list of 175 securities in order to search his firm’s expansive holdings. After quickly scanning the available quantities of each item in the list, he then searches within the results to find out what proportion of current holdings for each security has been untouched for over a week.

An architect receives a call from a construction site about a flooring installation process. She uses her building modeling application to search for any project specification content that references “flooring” or “adhesive” in the “northern foyer.” She views the results both in a table and within a 3D wireframe of the structure.

A scientist users her analysis application to search a massive database shared by several cooperating clinical research labs. She is looking for only those clinical data that contain both a certain genetic marker and treatment method.
Knowing how to effectively locate specific information can be a primary skill for knowledge workers, and individuals may develop diverse searching strategies to accomplish their goals (A6, A7, A8).

The pervasiveness and utility of search in a variety of user experiences can set very high expectations. Meeting these expectations in knowledge work applications can require product teams to envision possible intersections of workers’ information seeking tasks (A), diverse metadata (B2, B5, B6), integrated data sources (I5), high level algorithmic approaches, and other factors.

Beyond typical, open, textual input methods, product teams can envision supplementary search options and approaches that are grounded in the specifics of targeted work practices (B, I1). To facilitate certain frames of understanding and discovery, teams can also explore concepts for interactive results formats that complement conventional results tables (F3, F7). Thinking holistically (C4), teams can envision how using search functionality could be one operation or task within larger progressions of information seeking behavior (F4, G1), which many involve filtering, sorting, and re-representing data sets (F8, I3).

When product teams do not actively consider the potential role of comprehensive and relevant search in their application concepts, resulting tools may not adequately support workers’ goals. Excluded or poorly implemented search functionality can cause people to “lose time” scanning though volumes of onscreen content (D3). Additionally, users may not locate or discover key information, leading them to incorporate less relevant items into their work outcomes (G3, K5, L1). To mitigate these issues, individuals and organizations may spend more effort in communication (J) and in organizing their data assets (D2).

See also: C8, E, F, H, I




Application Envisioning questions:

Given the ubiquitous value of search functionality in many computing experiences, how might search play a useful role in your team’s application concepts? What interaction objects and stored information might targeted knowledge workers be looking for as part of their work practices, and what search tools and results representations could effectively help them to find it?

More specific questions for product teams to consider:
What types of information retrieval and discovery goals do targeted individuals currently have within the work practices that your team is striving to mediate?

How do these goals fit within the narrative arcs of certain tasks and larger activities?

How variable are targeted workers’ information seeking approaches? What commonalities might your team identify across these behaviors?

What expectations for search functionality have workers developed from using other computing tools?

What larger technology trends and advanced analogies to other domains could valuably inform your team’s ideation around relevant search functionalities?

What inherent data attributes, such as the characteristics of interaction objects, could potentially be searched on in your application concepts?

Where might open, free text searching of these metadata support workers’ existing information seeking goals?

How might the adoption of new computing options into targeted work practices create volumes of content that could benefit from more specific information seeking methods?

What tailored and specialized search functionality might your team envision for workers’ information seeking goals? When might such “advanced” searching represent the norm, not the exception?

What novel representations of search results might your team sketch with the goal of allowing workers to meet their information retrieval or exploration goals more directly and accurately?

How could the underlying algorithms of your search concepts create content biases that could match workers’ information seeking mindsets?

Do you have enough information to usefully answer these and other envisioning questions? What additional research, problem space models, and design concepting could valuably inform your team’s application envisioning efforts?


< PREVIOUS PAGE  |  NEXT PAGE >



Back to top  |  View Table of Contents

All original contents of Working through Screens online book are subject to
the creative commons license (Attribution-NonCommercial- ShareAlike http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/) unless otherwise noted.
Please attribute the work to “Jacob Burghardt / FLASHBULB INTERACTION Consultancy.”