UX: do less, but with feeling

We were all taught (or have learnt) that there are two parts to experience: ‘What do users need to do?’ (Pragmatism) and ‘How do users want to feel?’ (Hedonism). This UX balancing act is no longer in in a state of equilibrium: smart fridges will soon re-order our food but we’re losing the motivation to leave the house.

Against an avalanche of pragmatic UX advice, this post defines a new path, a path that delivers less, but with feeling.

–––

Out of balance

We know how to improve the pragmatic characteristics of an experience (simplicity, purpose, usability, functionality), but we need to do more.

MVPs have been re-labelled MVaPs (Minimum Valuable Products); MLPs (Minimum Lovable Products) and SLCs (Simple, Lovable, Complete) but usually ‘Lovable’ just refers to ‘elegant/simple UX’ and/or ‘fun/beautiful design’, or worse: more pragmatic utility. What’s holding us back from contending with love and hedonism directly?

As a <role>, I want <feature> so that <reason>. The humble user story can only contend with utility. The additional context within Alan Klement’s job story is better, but let’s look at the famous pizza example once more:

1. When I want something to eat…
2. When I’m in a rush and want a something to eat…
3. When I’m in a rush, I’m starving and want something to eat…
4. When I’m in a rush, starving, need something I can eat with one hand while ‘on the go’ and I’m not sure of the next time I’ll be able to eat…

In the example above, the potential solution shifts from a restaurant to a pizza slice/snickers bar as additional context is given. But if job stories are meant to represent real people then I’d wager some of the following characteristics might also be relevant:

1. When I want something to eat…
2. When I’m worried about my weight and want something to eat…
3. When I want to feel welcomed, I’m worried about my weight and want something to eat…