10. On Delight, Emotion, and UX - Flipping the Script with UX Specialists Therese Fessenden & Rachel Krause
29:27 Share

This is the Nielsen Norman Group UX Podcast. I'm Therese Fessenden, and today I'm not the host. That's right. I'm Rachel Krause, and I am going to be guest hosting today's episode. Yes, I'm super excited. This is episode 10.

of our humble podcast, which means we've basically hit our very first milestone, which is double digits. We're really glad to have made it this far with our listener support, your support. So to celebrate this, we're shaking things up. Yeah. And it's exciting because, Therese, you have gotten the opportunity to interview so many UX specialists on a good amount of pressing UX topics. And I'm

But I thought it would be really fun to give you a chance to talk about a topic near and dear to you. Yeah, this is exciting. I'm also really nervous now that I'm in the hot seat. But yes, today, Rachel will be asking me all the questions.

How did you get to this prestigious position of being the podcast host? Tell me more. So it was an idea I had about a year ago. I'd been part of NNG for about four years at that point last year. It was something I just felt like we really needed to do. We had such great instructors, not that I'm biased or anything, but we had such great instructors that had so much knowledge and were just such great people.

fun people to talk to, I felt like it was a great opportunity to share our knowledge in a different way. You teach a class on emerging patterns and you're always looking for emerging trends in the UX world. So what are some of the most interesting things that you've come across

in terms of emerging cool things that are happening in the UX world lately. Oh yeah, this is a class I love. And of course I love all my classes. It's like picking your favorite child, like picking your favorite class. But this is a class that I do work on quite a bit because the title's Emerging Patterns, like we're constantly on the hunt for what is not just new because...

New technology is everywhere all the time, like every second there's some new development. And as much as it can be fun to find the newest and latest trends, what's often a lot harder is figuring out what's going to last, like what is actually going to impact people's work, what's worth the time and energy and energy.

That's a harder question to answer. And I know a lot of people come to the class like wanting to predict the future. And I certainly want to predict the future too. And there are some frameworks we can use to sort of evaluate whether a trend is going to stick around. But

One that is particularly top of mind to me, at least one I'm excited about, is blockchain and NFTs, which is kind of nerdy of me, but also is something that I do think is going to change the way we do our work. But what I don't think will change will be how people react to

to designs and like what people are looking for and people's expectations. Like I think blockchain has a ton of potential to like democratize technology as a whole, redistribute wealth, make data more encrypted, more protected, and enable people to do lots of things.

So a lot of that stuff excites me because I'm like, this is really a new technology that's going to change things. At the same time, though, I know that there are going to be folks like a lot of my family members who are going to see the stuff and be like, block what? What's an NFT? A nifty? That is going to be part of this longer, more challenging task, which is

Not just can we educate people on what blockchain is, but why do people even need to be educated on what blockchain is? Is there any other way that maybe we can translate what we're creating into more user-centric terms? And so in a lot of ways, I think this space is very developer-centric kind of by necessity because this technology is still emerging. It's still being built and we're still exploring its capabilities, but also it's

It's not something that is necessarily going to be super mainstream until we have a lot more UX effort. So that's why I'm excited about it, because I think there's a ton of potential for like UX professionals to like get involved and really make this become a more mainstream technology. But yeah, that's where my brain's at is NFTs and blockchain. But yeah, it's it's something that it's one of many different little emerging trends that is currently on my mind.

Definitely. I think it's interesting to think about, you know, blockchain and NFTs and kind of the, I kind of envision a mini journey map in my head about someone going through that process for the first time. And I feel like the scale of user satisfaction in the beginning is probably very low in terms of new users.

just from the confusion that might come across it, especially something that doesn't feel very tangible like a website or an application. So I think going kind of along those lines of talking about user satisfaction, we talk about the word delight a lot in UX. Oh, we have to delight our users. How delightful is that experience? And I think it's a term that's thrown around a lot in the UX world. How would you define delight in UX?

I love these questions, these like deep questions about defining things because it's, they're difficult questions, but I think it's important to really think about this definition of what delight really is. I think a lot of people think of the word delight and they think of someone like dancing in their seat or like laughing, smiling, you know, just genuinely exhilarating, positive feeling. And that's not wrong. I would say that's a form of delight for sure.

And it's great if we have people feeling that way about the things we design, the things we create. I also think delight can take a different form. So when I really think about the definition of delight, I think of it as a positive thing.

And that sounds so vague, but I think it's important to define it that way because you can have something like surface delight versus deep delight. So we have an article that I'll link in the show notes about this theory of positive emotion and how surface delight and deep delight both have a role to play.

And so usually when people use the term delight, they're thinking of things like surface delight. So surface delight would be like some type of interface element that's, you know, makes people happy or has like a positive feeling, but it's usually really contextual and like local to a particular area of the interface. It's not necessarily a positive feeling that extends for the entire user's journey or experience with a product. So an example I like to think about is like,

animated gif right so you see an animated gif side note I will always always call it gif it will never be a gif I will I will die on this hill that's peanut butter that is peanut butter um

Nonetheless, animated gif, right? That would be an example of this kind of local contextual thing that can bring us joy. It's not going to change our world. It's not going to necessarily, you know, move us to some deep feeling of joy, but it's something that makes us happy potentially in that moment. Other examples could be like a joke, right? A joke that's told in an error message, right?

So those would be examples of like surface delight. But deep delight is so much harder to achieve. And I like the term deep because it often goes beyond individual interface elements. It goes into how well we are meeting someone's needs as a human being, but also as a user, as a customer. We can also go deeper.

deeper into thinking about how streamlined is our workflow. And, you know, I often joke around that when you think about deep delight, the last thing you want to hear is streamlined workflows. That sounds like the most boring way to approach making a really enjoyable interface. But the fact is when something is streamlined and actually meets people's needs and not just meets their needs or expectations, but exceeds those expectations and delivers the

even more than was expected and adds value, that's where we really get these more holistic, delightful experiences. So one example, actually, this is an example I give in my class, persuasive and emotional design. It's actually a TurboTax example. And it was a case study about this particular interface element. And I'll put that in the show notes as well, but it's this

you know, person who was doing their tax filing, which is very timely as we release this episode. But this person was doing their tax filing and their spouse had just passed away that year. So this person was doing their normal filing and it got to the section about the spouse and, you know, doing their income information. And then the workflow asks, you know, do any of these apply to Pat, the spouse?

And then there are two check boxes. One of them is Pat was legally blind and the other one is Pat passed away this year. So this person checked the box, which is Pat passed away this year. And this this little message popped up that said, we're sorry for your loss. You know, we'll make sure that everything gets filed correctly. And the person who had seen this had written a note to the TurboTax team, like, please pass on, you know, how meaningful this was to me.

Now, when you think of delight, that's not something people necessarily think of, right? Someone who's mourning a loved one. But that was a great example of how delight can often go well beyond just like this one dimensional happy emotion. And so, you know, emotion is really this, you know, that's another deep question. What is emotion? It's often this, you know, this

This more complex realm where you have things like positive and negative affect, and then you also have high energy versus low energy. And so you can have something as nuanced as like cathartic feelings, even though it's not positive.

Delight in the more conventional sense. It really is, you know a meaningful experience So that's what I think of when I think of delight I think of an experience that really goes beyond any single interaction and delivers value, you know in someone's life so

Yeah. So that's what I think of it. It's a big question, but it's a lofty goal for sure. I think that's really interesting. I haven't heard that TurboTax example, but I think that's so powerful. And it really shows that delight, like you said, doesn't just have to be this positive thing, but it's something that leaves a lasting impression or something that I would probably recommend because they had put that extra thought into it. And it is

you know, taking into consideration what I'm going through as a user, not just trying to throw a bunch of legalese at me. So I think that's really cool. Yeah. Yeah.

We talk about designing for delight. And now that we kind of know all the facets of delight, that it's more than just happiness that comes with a product. But I have this question about should delight always be something that we strive for? You know, should we always be trying to delight the user? Like if I am trying to schedule a doctor's appointment, is that something that should be delightful? Is that something that we need to make all these extra efforts for? Or should it just be really straightforward and simple?

I think there's an opportunity to build a relationship. And so when I think of delight in these contexts, I don't necessarily think of it as how fun can we make it? Although that can certainly be something we strive for. I don't think that should be the main goal. Maybe what we can focus on is what our users' expectations are and whether or not we can exceed them. So if I were to take that

doctor's appointment example. Actually, a good one I can give is somewhat related. It's a veterinary clinic example. So fun fact, I have a dog and a cat. I've somehow miraculously managed to keep them silent during these podcast episodes. We got an email from a vet clinic that was like, oh, Finley's vaccine is coming up due, something along those lines.

That's not something I would necessarily say is like super joyful, but that's helpful because I had no idea when Finley's veterinary appointment was going to be due. So stuff like that might not be seen as conventionally delightful, but yeah,

It can be something that exceeds someone's expectations. And over time, that type of anticipating someone's needs is what builds that relationship and what ultimately builds that more holistic sense of delight. So, yeah.

Another example I can give, once again, in the vet clinic vein, we went to a clinic where they had a little blackboard. And before each patient went into each room, they would write the patient that was coming into the room on their name on the board. When I say patient, I'm talking about a pet, right? An animal. They're writing the animal's name on this little blackboard.

But then when the owner and that patient would walk into the room, the first thing the owner would see would be their pet's name written lovingly in blackboard chalk with a little heart on it. So small detail. Ultimately, does it really make a huge difference in that particular pet's treatment? Not really, right? It doesn't necessarily impact that particular interaction, but it adds value. So I think there are opportunities there.

to have delight? Should it be our primary goal? I think that ultimately meeting you, like if I didn't get treatment at that vet clinic and I just saw these little heart-shaped scrolls on a blackboard, probably wouldn't be a great experience. But if that need is being met and then there is additional value being met, I think that's where the opportunity really lies.

Yeah, I think that's interesting. You know, you talk about delight doesn't have to be the main goal and, you know, should it even be the main goal? We get a lot of direction, I think, from stakeholders, from clients that are saying, we want to delight our users. We want to, you know, give them the best experience possible in everything. How do we manage those kinds of expectations with our stakeholders and clients when that's kind of their mentality? Yeah.

That's a really good question. Because I do think to some extent, we should try to improve every facet of an experience. But we also don't have like endless money or time or people. And if only, right? Oh, it'd be amazing. And even if we are one of these massive multinational corporations with, you know, a ton of money, and a ton of, you know, human resources and a ton of

opportunities to improve, we're still going to see the issues that you could see in any organization, silos and difficulty coordinating. So yeah, I would say it's good to strive for constant improvement, but I think it's easy to get lost in the embellishments of

And I think it's really important to dig down into why we're even making those embellishments in the first place. There was this organization that I was on hold with for a while, got transferred about seven times, no less than seven times to different people. And at the end of the seventh, I had saxophone blasting, saxophone weight music blasting in my ear. And I was furious. I

That's when I think about embellishments being prioritized over the actual journey, over the actual user needs. And actually to use Cara Pernice's slogan that she coined a while back, you cannot impose joy. Delight is a noble cause.

But we can't impose this exuberant delight on somebody if they are not happy. If they're not having their needs met, if we're trying to help resolve those needs, it does us no good to focus on happiness. It does us a lot more good to focus on where our users are feeling pain. And I know for you, Rachel, as instructor of design thinking, I'm sure this is a common theme that comes up.

But I know we both have that same philosophy, which is that if we focus on why people are doing something in the first place, as opposed to how can we make this fun, that's where we're really going to have a much greater impact, perhaps even more return on our efforts, on our investments.

I think that's great because I think it's easy to focus on the happy path, the path that is the most straightforward, that is if everything works perfectly, this is our happy path. But I think you're right when we actually focus in on the problems, the pain points, the places where users are frustrated.

we actually come up with even better ideas and it's a chance to really focus on those real problems rather than just picking that low hanging fruit. So I think that that is a really good point and actually opens us up to create even better things when we do focus on the areas where people are frustrated and not try to make them superficially happy, but actually solve their problems. Right. Yeah. And in a similar vein, yes, we should definitely try to solve users' problems, but

I think we should also not just try to like barely check the box, right? If there is some way we can really add more value, that's going to be much better. And I'm actually going to quote you, but in, it was in one of your courses, I think it was design ops, where you discuss the concept of minimum viable product, right? Which is this idea that

There is this minimum product that we have to deliver in order for it to actually be viable in the market. And I think that's a good starting point if we want to build something out in a very small or short timeline, if we're really lean. But you bring up this concept of a minimum lovable product.

So yeah, if you want to share more about that. I remember when you brought that up in your class, I remember my ears lit up and I'm like, that's what we need. That's what we really need to focus on is not just building something that's viable. It checks the box, but something that actually is meaningful and adds value. Yeah. So the...

The case study in question here that we talk about minimum lovable product in design ops comes from Autodesk, I believe. And they kind of had this frustration with minimum viable product where they were –

really only checking the boxes for engineering and QA and business requirements, but they really weren't thinking about usability and usability was kind of like an afterthought. And that's, I think a common concern with MVP is we forget about making things actually good and easy to use. We just want them to basically work. So,

Autodesk came up with a just kind of a new lens to think about that same concept and looked at it as minimum lovable product. So when we deliver a product, it should also be something that users want, enjoy using and actually love it. And I think it's such a one of those things that's probably a little corny, but I think just that mindset shift makes a lot of difference in what we build.

Yeah, for sure. Because now you're thinking less about how fast can I make something and is it good enough? Now we're thinking not only is it just good enough to ship, but is this something that is worth shipping in the first place? Is it something that's worth the time and effort for? Yeah, definitely. Now, going back to how to use persuasion and emotion in your interface design, what

What advice would you give to UXers out there who are looking to better engage with their users and create some of these delightful experiences just based on what you've encountered over the years and the different trends that you're seeing? Yeah.

The word engagement always makes my like hairs on the back of my neck stand up because engagement can be good. It can also be really destructive in terms of, you know, being a metric that we evaluate. So as for engaging with users, I think it's important to really identify what does it mean to engage with users? What does it mean for us as a business? What does it mean for our users? What do they get out of this?

And I think ultimately that delightful experience that we're pursuing is going to come from whether or not we're engaging in a way that actually brings value to our users' lives, like does something that impacts them positively. And so one of the things I bring up in the persuasive and emotional design class is this hierarchy of user needs, right?

And this is sort of like attributed to two people. I know Aaron Walter in his book, Designing for Emotion, he identifies some of these user needs, kind of starts at the bottom with like, is it functional? Like, is it functional as a product or a service, right? And then from there you build up, you get reliable. Does it work consistently? Does it bug out sometimes? Then goes into usable. Is it actually something people can intuitively understand? And

Then you get to pleasurable or enjoyable. And at the very top, you get meaningful. So actually that very top was not in Aaron Walter's book, but Daniel Rustin had this great article on the Google Design blog about that particular top of the pyramid, because that was a gap that he noticed as well. It's like, we can have a delightful interface, but if it ultimately isn't meaningful, if it's not addressing pain, if it's not adding value,

then are we really, you know, at the pinnacle of our designs? And the answer is not really, right? We can always do better. So,

In terms of engaging with users, creating delightful experiences, I think the best way to really build that relationship out is one, identify what those deep user needs are. And two, make sure that we're respecting that relationship that we have with our users. I think in many ways, there can be a disregard of the trust that our users have, our customers have.

or a disregard that it even is a relationship, right? We kind of fixate on the numbers. We fixate on increasing metrics, right? Maybe it's time on task or time on the page. And that's a number we just, we want to boost because frankly, those numbers are

increasing give us bonuses, right? Sometimes incentives are tied to these performance changes. Or maybe it's the bounce rate decreases or the exit rate decreases. So a large variety of different metrics, which may be on the surface seem like good or bad metrics.

But when you dig deeper and kind of learn like, okay, for example, when someone's at the end of a checkout flow, it makes sense that they would exit the page. They're done purchasing, like they're finished. So, you know, simply looking at,

exit rate, bounce rate, or time on task isn't always going to give a full picture of what someone's really experiencing. And when we overly fixate, we can disregard the real context that matters, which is maybe someone is spending a lot of time on a page, not because they're engaged, but because they literally can't find what they're looking for.

In which case, we're not doing a great job at building that relationship. And if our other evaluation is how many pages they click on, again, maybe that's not actually engagement overall. So don't get too drawn in by the metrics and

see if you can learn more about how your customers feel at each step of the process. That sounds very fluffy, but there is a level of objectivity you can give to that type of research. You can do observational research

And C, you can actually analyze facial expressions. You can look for micro expressions. Now there are some tools out there that do this, but I would say there's no tool that really substitutes understanding context and why someone feels a certain way. So I feel

So I feel like that's where you can have the most impact in terms of actually meeting needs and building a relationship that lasts longer than just one interaction, right? A relationship that lasts maybe across many interactions because we actually get a chance to build that trust and build that customer loyalty. So that would be my recommendation is, you know, use metrics, but make sure you're looking at the big picture. Yeah, really having that balance of trust.

quantitative metrics and then qualitative insights is really going to give you kind of a well-rounded picture of how people use your applications. I think that's really good. And I think we're seeing that more and more like stakeholders in business love quantitative metrics and they love to advocate for them. And us as UXers are kind of like, hey, cool, those are great. But like also let's talk to people and see how they feel. Yeah.

Yeah, there was this actually a great article too. I read it in Harvard Business Review. It was about improving empathy skills. And the number one recommendation was not perspective taking. So there was this difference between perspective taking and another strategy. We often think of perspective taking as, oh, put yourself in someone's shoes.

But actually perspective taking limits empathy because then we start to broadcast our assumptions about how we would behave in that particular situation as opposed to what that person would actually do or how they actually would behave and what motivates them and what's important to them. And so it actually is not a great strategy for building empathy. And instead, perspective getting, which

which is like actually talking to human beings, talking to as many human beings as you can. That's going to be a much better strategy at helping you be better at reading other people. So it's not just talking to your coworkers more often or people you already know, but talking to a variety of people as well. And that sort of comes with the territory of doing user research. But, you know, especially as you find, maybe you're interviewing the same types of people over and over again, you know,

Maybe it's time to stretch out a little, see if you can interview a slightly different type of customer. And you might be surprised what you learn. I know I'm constantly surprised by what I learn. Users are an endless well of interesting surprises. Certainly makes my job fun.

and unexpected and surprising. Absolutely. I know you and Alita talked about that in an episode on the false consensus effect as well, which is a great one to listen to. Shameless plug. I know I'm taking this guest hosting thing very seriously. You're a natural. It's great. Yeah.

So, Therese, I think it's about getting to that time here. Tell us where people can follow you and your work. So on the NN Group website, I'm always writing, publishing videos. I'm also on this podcast. But other than that, on social media channels, you can find me on Twitter at TBFESS. That's T-B-F-E-S-S.

I'm also on LinkedIn as well. So, oh, and I just joined Clubhouse. It is another place you can find me as well. It's also at TV Fest. But yeah, thank you, Rachel, for being a host. Yeah, no, you know, Therese, I will gladly step in and interview you anytime you want to talk about something exciting. I love to hear it.

Any of the topics that Therese talked about where she referenced any articles or courses, we'll put those in the show notes for you all. So you can feel free to check those out after the show.

And then lastly, if you like the show, you want to support us, please hit subscribe on whatever platform you're listening from. And if you're on Apple Podcasts, we would love to have you leave us a rating. It really helps us just get the word out, not just about our show, but the research that we do, which allows us to inform you of all new exciting UX topics. And it would really just mean a lot to us. So, Therese, I have loved sitting in for you. This is amazing.

harder than it looks. So thank you for putting me up to the challenge. And it was really cool to hear your perspectives on delight and just how we make things better for users. Yes, it was a lot of fun. So yeah, on that note, thanks everyone for listening. And I guess that's our cue to say, remember, keep it simple.