User First Marketing Blog

User First Development Blog

Development vs. Marketing Blog

client login
  • Tobii Eye Tracking
  • Web Analytics 2.0
  • UI / UX Development

Mobile eye tracking - part 3 of 3

July 6th, 2010

Here is a brief overview of three approaches to analyzing mobile eye tracking output.

1. Watch the video output and manually tally the ‘hits’. Slowly playback the video and count how often the point of gaze lands on the area of interest. This gives you a general sense of what is looked at and what is ignored, but only limited conclusions can be drawn with respect to the amount of time spent viewing each AOI. One could slow the video down further (frame by frame) and take note of the time stamp for each time the participant starts looking at one particular region. This is enormously tedious, especially for video segments longer than 2 minutes and with more than just a handful of AOI. It is also imprecise; the time stamps are obtained at 30 fps, with up to 5 or more data points lost with each frame, before and after the time stamp. There is also substantial opportunity for human error in tallying hits or recording time (I speak from experience).

cross-hair

2.Identify fixations, then tag AOI based on fixation. In this approach the analysis software identifies fixations following a particular algorithm developed by the manufacturer. Then, thumbnails are generated for the video segment during which the fixation occurred. The research analyst tags each thumbnail with an identification of which AOI is being looked at during that fixation. The output sums the tags and can compute dwell time based on the length of the fixation. This is all very promising and most certainly not as time consuming as option 1. Nonetheless, each data file needs to be addressed individually and to a certain degree, manually. A greater concern, in my opinion, is the reliance on the identification of fixations to then in turn make conclusions about viewing attention and dwell time. Fixations, by definition, assume a moment of movement cessation of the pupil as the eye fixates on an object. What if the object is moving and the pupil is following in smooth pursuit? How is the fixation captured? Experience with this approach has left me wondering why the dwell times on AOIs total up to only a fraction of the total testing session. What did the participant look at the rest of the time? Did he keep moving his eyes so quickly that he never truly looked at anything? Hard to imagine.

3. Draw regions ‘on’ the output videos and process the data against the defined AOI. This is essentially the same idea as most analysis approaches with desktop systems. Identify the AOI in the scene and the software will tally when the x,y coordinates of the point of gaze fall within that region. There are two approaches:

a. Draw each AOI ‘by hand’ for each frame. This is can be reasonable for a small number of AOI and a fairly stable scene. The markers for the AOI can be dragged and re-sized in order to consistently overlay the actual regions in the scene as the video plays. It is potentially more time consuming than option 1, but is about as precise as mobile eye data analysis can get.

7-6-2010-9-28-14-am

b. Use a form of image recognition software and have the software identify AOI. This approach works well if there is some contrast within the scene and you have primarily only one scene to deal. Here you create a video of the scene and identify the AOI for the software. It, in turn, uses this as a key to automatically identify the AOI in the recorded data files. One the AOI are identified, the process is the same as in (a) above. This potentially is a very quick process and results in data that is potentially very precise. It is almost too good to be true.

So that is where we stand at User First with our understanding of mobile tracking. We welcome corrections, other perspectives, elaboration, and the sharing of experiences as it pertains to this topic as we are ourselves learning each day about what is available, what is in the works, and how we might meet client needs in the future.

As we move forward with mobile tracking and expand on our experiences with different analysis methods in particular, we will keep you posted

Loop 11 Adds New Features, and Why They Rock

June 28th, 2010

If you have ever ran an un-moderated usability study you know that most solutions don’t provide advanced features for research panels or the functionality for custoloop-blog-imagem analysis. We personally use Loop 11 for un-moderated usability studies. Although we love the tool and the great insights we get we always sigh when it’s time to crunch the numbers. But not anymore!! Loop 11 just released new features that will make setting up and analyzing un-moderated usability studies a breeze. Within this post we will review the changes and why they are important.

1). Tracking participants using unique IDs
When using a research panel for a usability test tracking individual participants is important not only for segmentation but also to know exactly what participant completed the study and should be paid their incentive, terminated, or was over-quota. Previously, I had to ask the participant to fill in their Ids and as you can imagine some participants didn’t answer correctly. I would also download all of the IP address Loop11 gave me and try to match it back just to double check, which took hours!

Why this rocks: Now all you have to do is customize the end of the URL with a unique ID for each participant. You can now easily pay your participants and segment your users without having to invest a lot of time.

blog-image

2).Re-Categorise multiple URLs at a time
Instead of re-categorising one URL at a time you can now re-categorise multiple URLs at the same time.

Why this rocks: Some websites have dynamic URLs, and you can’t set-up a goal for every possible combination within Loop 11. Now instead of re-categorising one URL at a time you can select what pages you want to re-categorise. This saves time during the set-up process of the study and analysis because once you re-categorised the URLs the data re-configures!

3). Pop-up invitation controls
If you are recruiting your participants by intercepting them via your website; you now have a feature allowing you to control the percentage of visitors that you ‘invite’.

Why this rocks: Selecting what percentage of your visitors is super valuable because too high a sample rate might mean you are surveying more visitors than you really need to in order to get valid results. Remember, too small a sample could produce results that lack statistical validity.

blog-image-22

4). Individual participant path analysis in exports
Full path analysis of individual participants can now be exported into reports. This allows you to segment the conversion funnel by your top segments, whether you segment participants by female only or participants that clicked abandoned when they actually succeed the task.

Why this rocks: In the past, the way we collected this data was by using the interface within Loop 11 and simply copying and pasting each link for each participant for each task. Needless to say that it took awhile and there was lots of room for human error. Now all you have to do is download the report. Once you have this data you can segment your funnel analysis to view how different users completed or failed the task based either on their demographics and/or geographic.

5). Individual responses for Rating Scale Matrix questions
The results for rating scale matrix questions, while always available at an aggregated level were never available so you could see the individual participant responses.

Why this rocks: Let’s say you asked a gender question because you wanted to know how many females or males participated in your study. Loop would just tell you the percentage but not who was female or male. Now you can download the report and know who was who. This type of information is important if you had follow-up question after the task, you can find what type of user rated the task easy or difficult. Or if you didn’t use a research panel you can start your test with some demographic questions so your analysis can get a little juicer with segmentation.

What is your experience with Loop 11, are you excited about these changes? As Toby Biddle would say “Happy Testing”!

If I Had to Pick One Report, This Is It…

June 21st, 2010

About two years ago, Avinash Kaushik asked “if you had to pick one web analytics report on a deserted island which report would you take.” I totally agreed with his selection of the outcome by all traffic sources report as I am also a fan of outcomes. (Show me money!) But what if I got stranded on this island with an iPad and because of this I got to cheat only a little? This post is about my one favorite report in each of the top three web analytics tools that I would.

google-analytics-blog1

1). Google Analytics-one of the coolest reports just released is the intelligence report. I have been adding upper and lower control limits to my dashboard for about four years now. It really helps me know whether an upward or downward trend is something I should be paying attention to. This new report not only automates that process but emails me when there is activity above or below my limits. I would take this report (although a dashboard, so it is a cheat) because I am assume that before I got stranded I took the time to set up this alerts about all the important KPI’s my company has, so I would still be on the pulse of the companies objectives.

coremetrics-blog

2). Coremetrics- ( let’s assume that we are an eCommerce website) one of the reports that I always go to is the top abandoned products report. Talk about leaving money on the table, this report tells you exactly how much -down to the last penny! As seasons change revenue is expected to change, but what if you knew what products online users wanted but didn’t purchase last year. Would you start rolling out some landing page test or re-design the products check out funnel to ensure that this year’s sales don’t follow the same pattern? Why I would take this report, simply because it is actionable. It lets me know immediately what users want but due to either bad usability or messaging and change it.

discover

3). Omniture- pathing analysis is something that I love to look at especially using segmentation (so this is why it’s a cheat). In the example above I selected my Facebook visits as my segment and can see exactly what path they took and see what the fallout rate was to my success pages. This type of information lets me see if my content has continuity and analyze key website process flows in hopes of identifying opportunities for improvement. From a usability standpoint I love this report because it will help me identify how user’s navigate through the website and using segmentation will allow me to find key traffic drivers that maximize ROI.

What about you, what report would you take? would you also have an iPad and have one workaround this question? I would love to hear your thoughts or comments.

Mobile eye tracking - part 2 of 3

May 31st, 2010

Challenge 1: Make the eye tracker small enough to carry about, secure enough to prevent shifting with movement and discrete enough to not make a scene.

Desktop eye trackers include a monitor, a series of cameras trained on the eyes that either stand alone or are built into the monitor, and a recording unit of some kind, both for a steady stream of eye data and video capture of the monitor screen. Mobile trackers include the same, but now a monitor is not needed; instead, there is an additional camera unit, the scene camera. This camera records the scene as the participant encounters it and needs to be ‘attached’ to the user close to same plane and position as the eyes. This is potentially a lot of equipment that now needs to be carried around by the participant.

SR EyeLink w/ scene camera

SR EyeLink w/ scene camera

One of the earlier mobile tracking systems that became available and was reasonably accurate was a modification of the desktop eye tracking system. SR Research took their EyeLink system and added a scene camera. This worked because EyeLink was not a remote system; it was a head-mounted unit and had room along the headband to host a scene camera. This head-mounted unit did not include the recording system and thus was tethered to a processor and hard drive. The cable was rather thick (thickness of a finger) and was limited to 40 feet. The recording system could be placed on a cart and with a long extension cord, could be pushed around after the participant. This system was certainly secure enough, but not designed for mobility or discretion. It was effective for small spaces, such as flipping through magazines, considering a display stand, or evaluating a single shelf set or package in hand. Nonetheless, the headgear was rather cumbersome and definitely drew attention.

Courtesy SMI

Courtesy SMI

Luckily in the last 1-2 years there have been tremendous developments. Scene and eye cameras are significantly smaller and lighter and can be attached either to a cap or to a pair of glasses. Mobile trackers are still tethered; wireless systems are in the works, but so far the data streams are too heavy (with up to 100 data points per second and video from 2 cameras at 30 frames per second). Nonetheless, the cables are small, not much larger than those to your ear buds on your iPod. And, more importantly, they are tethered to equipment that is substantially less bulky - usually a recording device less than half the size of your typical laptop. This can be easily carried in a pouch that hangs over the shoulder of the participant or is otherwise attached.

Courtesy ASL

Courtesy ASL

Which approach is more effective - glasses or wearing a cap? Glasses have certain appeal because they are smaller and less noticeable. With proper straps these glasses can be secured so vigorous head movement does not shift the cameras about. Camera movement can result in a significant and undesirable shift in the calibration (i.e. what the data or video indicates the user is looking at is no longer what the user is really looking at). Glasses are more easy to secure than a baseball cap.

But glasses pose certain problems. They cannot be used if the participant wears prescription glasses (believe me, we’ve tried!). Further, the positioning of the eye camera and cut of the glasses is designed for a certain face structure. Deviate from this standard and the edge of the opening cut into the lens falls between the camera and the eye, distorting the camera’s view of the pupil.

Wearing a baseball cap with cameras attached offers solutions for both of these

Courtesy SMI

Courtesy SMI

challenges. The camera units attached to a cap are more flexible and offer more options for adjustment, allowing for accurate tracking of virtually any type of participant, young and old, with or without glasses, and any nationality. What about the camera shift? We’ve been reassured by the manufacturer that camera shift is monitored and seamlessly corrected via the tracking of the corneal reflection. If this is indeed the case, we’re sold! We have the opportunity to test out such a system in the coming weeks.

There are different mobile trackers available, and they differ not only in the hardware; some use dark pupil, some light, some with or without corneal reflection. Steps to calibrate, record and monitor in real-time varies by manufacturer. The robustness of the systems, especially if tracking in daylight or in particularly ‘bumpy’ environments (such as road car rallies!) varies. Detailed discussion of this will be dealt with in another post. For now, let me just say that not all mobile trackers are the same and do need to be carefully evaluated.

Call to Action Buttons: Designed to Impact User Experience

May 21st, 2010

I recently finished up an un-moderated usability test; I usually ask open ended questions after every task. Part of the fun and the blog-image-6madness is making sense of the all the juicy comments. For this particular study, I was taken aback by how many respondents mentioned that the website task longer took because all of the” good links” were on the bottom of the page or some were confused by the links themselves.

This got me thinking about Seth Godin (The Big Red Fez) helping users find the banana in less than 3 seconds.

What the website needed were call to action buttons (CTA) above the fold, and the links needed intuitive labels names (“read more” wasn’t cutting here). Calls to action in web design are meant to make people take an action and in user experience they are meant to make a task easier. Creating effective call to action buttons that grab the user’s attention and entice them to click can be challenging. This post will share some quick effective techniques. (For best practices read Smash Magazine’s post on design awesome CTA’s)

blog-image-5

Location, Location, Location,

Just like real estate, placing CTA’s in a prominent location such as the top section of a web page can lead to higher return of investment because users will likely notice it or remember it later, after they have looked at the site’s content. Another way, that CTA’s can be utilized is within the content itself. Why would a user want to read and scroll through the whole page if they have enough information and ready to proceed?  Call to actions buttons within the content in my experience result in user taking action because  they have already skimmed enough content. If you need more than one page to convince your visitors to take action, feel free to repeat yourself. If you offer a product tour or use several pages to explain complex features and options, place your call to action in a consistent position. This way visitors will know where to go when they are ready to take action.

blog-image-32

Language

Having a great call-to-action buttons is not as easy as just designing one from the best practices CTA guide (i.e. using irregular shapes, color contrast, larger sizes),  a great design  with the right language will help  guide users to follow a particular path and get to the valuable information they seek.  Labels on the buttons includes everything from simple things like “buy now” or “add to shopping cart”  and if you’re in the B2B vertical to  ”Download This Whitepaper”  or more specific wording.  A big pink button is pretty hard to miss but the example used design to catch the readers eye but the language of the offer  helps the user make the descions on whether or not they should download this software.

Have you been testing your call to actions? What combination has worked for you, would love to hear your experiences.

Mobile eye tracking - part 1 of 3

May 18th, 2010

For many years eye tracking has been limited to a controlled, virtual environment, making precise data collection and analysis relatively simple:

  • the computer screen doesn’t move,
  • participant movement is limited,
  • and stimulus presentations on screen are generally consistent across participants.

The biggest challenge researchers face is correcting for head movement (turning sideways or leaning forward) and managing point of gaze data on sometimes unexpected dynamic stimuli (pop-ups, animated ads, video, scrolling, etc.).

Nonetheless, it was relatively simple to track samples of 100 or more and evaluate their viewing pattern as they looked at on-screen presentations. Dynamic backgrounds posed a challenge, but as long as all participants looked at the same stimulus, it wasn’t too big of a deal to analyze this. It was time consuming to identify the areas of interest (AOI) for a background that is constantly changing, but once they are identified, everyone’s data can be run against the same AOIs (as identified, for example, in a television commercial). The output is then the same as for static backgrounds: precise dwell time and fixation information for areas of interest that can be aggregated across all participants. And this can easily be plotted on a static image of the background for visualization.

This type of testing was great for websites, TV commercials and software usability testing to name a few, but was less realistic when evaluating stimuli such as shelf displays, package designs, magazines or products in hand. This posed a problem; a golden rule in user research is to test real users in real environments. Eye tracking participants looking at virtual shelf displays on a computer screen just isn’t the same as eye tracking them as they look at actual packages on a shelf (though this certainly is up for debate).

Mobile eye tracker - image courtesy http://www.mangold-international.comThus came the shift to mobile eye tracking - recording a person’s point of gaze as he or she is moving about in a real, 3-D environment. This could be selecting magazines off of a shelf and reading them, moving about a store selecting products off of a shelf, or interacting with signage at a baseball game. The same technology could apply and has been modified for this type of testing, but there have been a number of obstacles along the way involving either the hardware or the software:

  1. Hardware: While hardware has been reduced in scope and size, a fast processor with a big enough hard drive is still needed, as are at least two cameras (one for the eye, one for the scene). The connection between computer and cameras needs to be wireless or all be so lightweight that it’s easily portable. The cameras have to be secured to the head in a way to limit any shift between camera and eye. How to manage these limitations effectively?

  1. Software: The calibration process and recording the data is much the same. The challenge is in the follow-up analysis. How do you identify regions and analyze point of gaze data when the background is constantly changing and is unique for each and every participant? How can you identify AOI rapidly and accurately with such variability? How can we aggregate data across participants when the stimuli varies so significantly? Can it be done to match the stable scene analysis that we are accustomed to, or is it necessary to make a significant paradigm shift in how we approach mobile eye data?

Different manufacturers and engineers have approached and managed these obstacles in unique ways. With the next few blogs I plan to explore that a bit further. I can only provide information based on personal research and experience, and am eager to hear more about experiences others have had. It’s an exciting new technology; although it has been around for years, there have been and continue to be substantial developments that bring this research approach more to the forefront.

Testing Assumptions-Eye Tracking Approach

May 17th, 2010

 Testing assumptions can be challenging; it can be difficult to put some of our strongly held beliefs under a microscope to evaluate and question. However, being able to discover a wrongly held belief and subsequently improve design or user experience because of this new information is extremely valuable. 

Eyetracking data visualization

Eyetracking data visualization

Recently we tested our and our clients’ assumptions. We conducted a study on how consumers develop their perceptions: what features do they look at and evaluate as they consider a product on a given dimension, such as size or functionality. In this case our client was interested in:

  • perceive the width of a product.
  • how consumers perceive the height of a product.
  • what aspects are looked at as a judgment is made.

Participants were asked to evaluate a hamburger on the dimension of” height”. The assumptions were that users would scan the hamburger from top to bottom; that makes intuitive sense. If you want to determine how tall something is, wouldn’t you look from the bottom to the top and evaluate the distance? A fair assumption, but in this case, incorrect.
*We simulated the desktop eye-tracking portion of the study with the hamburger images.

 
Here is a heat map from our hamburger study; it is very similar to the output from the actual study. The areas in red indicate a high concentration of viewing attention; this is what users spent most of the time looking at. The areas in yellow, or those that have no color, were looked at less. This heat map clearly suggests users spent their time evaluating the center of the hamburger, not the top and bottom.
A closer look shows that there are a few hot spots near the top and bottom of the bun, but they are small and likely due to viewing attention of only a small portion of participants. This is confirmed by a different type of heat map. This output plots the number of participants who looked at a particular element. Notice the concentration of participants who looked at the center of the burger, rather than the top or bottom.burger heat map

 These surprising results prompted us to start asking questions; we followed up with participants and asked them why they were looking at the center of the burger. They explained that without a reference to compare the height of one to another, they instead evaluated each component – the height of the patty, the thickness of the tomato and layer of lettuce, the scope of each bun half. A fat patty would suggest a taller burger.
A few caveats and new questions (good research always raises new questions). These are considerations to investigate further; some also underscore the importance of thorough pilot testing (another topic for another time).
1). Did the wording of the question somehow inadvertently guide them to evaluate the center of the burger more than the overall height?
2). Should the image be presented differently so that the center of the burger isn’t in the center of the screen (thus automatically grabbing attention)?
3). How would viewing patterns differ if burgers were presented side-by-side and how could that output be interpreted?
4). If we had asked participants, without eye tracking, how they evaluate the height of a hamburger, how would they have responded differently? That is, were they aware of their own viewing patterns?

What do think? Have you ever been challenged to test an assumption, what were the outcomes?

onUserExit - v1.1 released

January 25th, 2010

onUserExit - Execute Code When a User Leaves or Closes Your Website Our jQuery plug-in onUserExit has gotten an much overdue fixing up with the release of version 1.1.

Here’s what has changed in this new version:

Added support for forms as well, so submissions don’t trigger exit event.
Added support for detection of page refresh through F5 key and ctrl+r.

See the full demo posted in our creations area.

Download Plugin
Version 1.1 - onUserExit js files + dependencies
Download the complete demo here.

The full project can also be found on the jQuery website in the plugins directory under onUserExit.

Please feel free to submit suggestions for changes to this plugin!

The Five Elements of User Experience Management

December 8th, 2009

If you have ever heard User First speak you know that we consistently use the term “User Experience Management” when we talk about being more user centric. It’s not a word we created nor is it just a buzz buzzword around our office. User Experience Management is a way of thinking that encompasses everything we do. You might be asking “but what is it”? We welcome you to read our multi-phase approach and understand our process.

1). Analytical DNAUser Experience Management |User First

Information is vital in today’s online market. Website analytics can help support paid pay click initiative, monitor site performance, or optimize email campaigns. We know that whatever you use data for it should first be trusted information and second be able to tell a story. With every single project we first dive into the data ecosystem and help clients realize the value of their online customer intelligence. These insights provide visibility into your customer touch-point on your website to improve website performance.

2). Testing, Testing, 1-2-3

One of the smartest ways to make design improvements is by letting the customer be at the helm of the design. Landing page optimization is all about finding the right combination of elements that enhance the user experience. We get a good grasp on testing the right elements and start fine tuning top landing pages. By discovering how customers interact with your website we are able then to conclude questions that will guide an online intercept survey or a usability test.

3). Hearing it from them

We believe that the stories people tell about what they do and how they do it contain information vital to designing good interfaces. Whether doing usability test leveraging eye-tracking or simply asking the receptionist to download a PDF, getting feedback lets us create visual designs and websites that solve user’s problems.

4). Building Stories

Any design and development improvement that we make is based on the findings and insights from customer’s feedback and behavioral patterns. But before one design is drafted or is wireframe created we use storyboards to layout and organize users activities and to stimulate different thinking. These steps ensure that we generate the most usable and engaging website.

5). Passion

Our desk might be a bit of a mess and we might argue at time about using flash, but we are passionate about creating effective and memorable user experiences.

If you had any questions about user experience management or had any experiences getting your team to become more user centric please let me know. You can also find us on twitter at UserFirst

Dreams vs. Reality - An Idea is Only As Good As It’s Ability to Be Executed

November 10th, 2009

Well I’m going to kick off this section of our website with a realistic viewpoint on the relationship between Marketing and Development by instilling this tale with some of my own personal experience in the industry.  I case you aren’t familiar with me, I’m Scott Brooks, the co-Founder and Director of Web Development here at User First Interactive.  My personal vision for this company was to create a business centered around really understanding how the users of the websites I’ve continued to create over the years were actually using them.

I hope you’ll excuse me, because I’m going to take a strong departure from the traditional bite size blog post and really take time to tell the whole story in it’s embellished entirety.

Like many of you driven entrepreneurs out there, I too had a fire in my belly;  that type of fire that keeps you up late at night with the excitement of a future you yourself can create.  The sheer exhilaration I’ve experienced while ideas have sprung up from my inspirations puts one in a state of sheer bliss as the future seems to be opening up to you.   It’s an amazing feeling and I think one of the possibilities of these dreams, the hope embodied in them, is the biggest reason why we all strive to create something new and original… hey and making a buck doing something that you really believe in, well that’s just the icing on the cake!

So even though I am a developer, an engineer of the web, I too understand where the idea people in Marketing are coming from.  They live in an environment where coming up with the newest, catchiest way of getting your attention is part of their job.  Innovation is an expected byproduct of their efforts, so I can see why many of them, are so fixated on following the current trends and working so hard to one them and be the next big sensation.   Although I  have to say…  I don’t envy that kind of pressure.

So now comes the rough and tumble part of the story… but with an ear to my colleagues’ plight.  These marketers must try something new, to make the sale, to impress the client, to impress their boss, or to impress their colleagues.  So in the heat of the moment, while brainstorming with the client on a project a seemingly genius idea creeps into their heads.  “You know we could do THIS!”  And the crowd roars with agreement!  “What a splendid idea!”  The meeting ends with hands being enthusiastically shook as everyone leaps out of the conference room to make it happen.

Now the dream, the idea you’ve just put you and your company on the hook for is now held before the fiery eyes of the dreamer’s true nemesis… the developer (dun dun dun!  Hey, what can I say, I like a little dramatic flare).  “So we told the client we could do this.  How long will that take”.  Which for those of you on the broadcasting end of this conversation is when you see the developers face contort ever so slightly as his eyes glaze over in deep thought.  “uuuuuuuuhhhhhhh, wait, so you want to do what exactly?”  Being the standard response, since hell, before you start spinning your wheels a mile a minute, you might as well clarify what the heck their asking you to build.

So the conversation continues and usually ends one of two ways:

1) Developer type A - Mr. Smarty Pants, who of course quickly replies, “We don’t do that kind of thing here.  It’s just not doable.  [insert high level technology reason that may or may not be relevant]“.  Traditionally I’ve found these developers  to be EXTREMELY well versed in the basics of whatever language they use and can rattle off 100 specifications about the platform they use, but rarely are they comfortable stepping outside of that box of convention.  Eventually, if you as the marketer are resilient enough, you’ll find an example or some blog post online that confirms that something like the idea you had has been done… and he’s back on the hook.

2) Developer type B - The “I wonder” Guy, who’s probably come across some site that he’s seen that did something similar to what you’re speaking of and thinks, well let’s try to figure it out!  … I’m that guy and I tend to get myself in deep quite often…  thankfully I’ve been throw in the deep end hundreds of times ever since I started my career as C++ developer back in 1996.  Here’s the code, now figure it out and make it better!  That’s what I’m good at.  A child of the ever changing landscape that is the internetz.

So whether you’ve got Type A or Type B working with you at your workplace, essentially the result, for us developers is the same.  We are now on the hook and here’s the process that goes through our heads:

1) Can our development support this?  Sometimes the IT business decisions made, that seemed like a great idea at the time, have pained you into a corner.  If you haven’t heard the term, these are call “legacy systems” and the reason their called that is because your business has built it’s infrastructure off the best particular choice at the time and committed to working that way.  Over the years… ha… even months in this industry, the technology changes and new and better ways of creating websites come along.  But here you are with the system from 2-3 years ago wondering… “well cripes, even if it’s possible to do, can WE do it?”

2) So if the idea passes this hurdle, the next thought that crosses our mind is, with the current workload I have now, can I figure it out before the deadline?  And thankfully, my recent history with agency work, we were asked for our input on how long we thought creation of website elements would take… I wish I could say that happened everyone.  The fun part about this step is that usually we’re being put under the gun, right on the spot, to come up with a number.  And considering that it’s quite obvious that we at the company have never built anything like this before, well coming up with a number is really 1 part intuition and experience, and 1 part understanding standard project timeline expectations.  The formula shall never be revealed, so don’t bother asking  ;-).

3) Lastly, and most importantly………. Is there enough coffee in the kitchen to keep me awake long enough to pull this off!?!?!?

So as you can see, there’s a reason why some in your development department have grown that tell-tale throbbing vein in their forehead.  In the end, if you sell it, we’ve got to at least TRY to build it.  I’ll save the ramifications of trying to push the square peg through the round hole story for another post.  But by now, as a marketer, you should really understand why your developers really want to be involved in the client kick-off / selling process.  It’s better to head off any overblown client expectations before you have to give them the bad news and have to dash all those beautiful dreams you shared, and throw them to the wind.