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
K12.
Trusted and Credible Processes and Content



When knowledge workers are confident that an interactive application follows known professional standards or was contributed to by credible sources, they may be more likely to trust the computing tool’s processes and content. Product teams can envision honest and direct ways to engender these cues in their application concepts.






Examples from three knowledge work domains:
(Illustrated above) A financial trader knows that highly respected people at his firm provided feedback that was incorporated into the new version of his trading application. This makes him more confident that the tool’s interactive approaches and underlying rules are well suited to his work practices.

A scientist views the algorithms supplied by her analysis application as credible because leading luminaries in her clinical research field, including her own mentors, were consulted during the creation of the product.

An architect trusts the default reference information about construction materials that her building modeling application supplies because it comes from one of her preferred information sources.
Knowledge workers are often valued for their ability to assess the suitability of potential tools for their own, and their organizations’, processes. These skills can be especially important when the introduction of a new computing tool could have significant impacts on the character and outcomes of central work activities (A).

While the high level brand promise of a product firm, product family, or individual application can be a persuasive part of establishing a connection with knowledge workers, the particulars of how an application functions may also be a critical ingredient in peoples’ perceptions. All products implicitly communicate some of the underlying assumptions of their creators, and people may question the contributing sources and rationale behind specific definition, design, and implementation decisions that are particularly relevant to their own day to day efforts.

Product teams can promote trustworthiness and credibility by visibly communicating that an application follows accepted approaches and standards within a knowledge work domain. Products can also explicitly cite certain trusted individuals and organizations in targeted professional fields. The involvement of these parties in application envisioning can generate valuable insights, and resulting computing tools can meaningfully invoke their contributors’ industry cache via the structural embodiment of their leading ideas.

When product teams do not actively consider how they could establish the trustworthiness and credibility of their application’s processes and content, knowledge workers may greet resulting products with a healthy dose of skepticism. A lack of credibility can impact both individual and collective attitudes about a brand, which may then strongly influence product acquisition and adoption decisions.

See also: C1, C8, E3, E4, E5, E6, G1, G6, I5, K, M




Application Envisioning questions:

Which domain standards and thought leaders are viewed as credible by targeted knowledge workers and their organizations? How might your team meaningfully involve certain trusted sources in your ideation efforts, incorporating their input and insights in order to enhance the usefulness, usability, and desirability of your offerings?

More specific questions for product teams to consider:
What trusted professional standards could be relevant for the work practices that your team is striving to mediate?

What credible individuals and organizations could be valuable contributors and collaborators?

Which of these sources might be a good match for your team’s sketched strategic directions?

What risks might occur from aligning your computing tool with particular industry standards and well known individuals? What controversies might be better avoided?

How might your team incorporate pertinent insights and information from certain sources into your sketched application concepts?

What source cues could be visibly incorporated into the structure, content, and interactive processes of your product? What types of source related messaging might be effective within targeted markets?

What positive impacts could these honest and applicable citations have on your offerings’ brand positioning?

How might your team involve trusted contributors in your computing tool’s eventual user community?

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.”