SmartPark

SpotHero is a great solution for finding parking when you need it. But what if we could take the parking experience even further?

SpotHero relies on dedicated spots that are already available and managed by a third party. You are getting a certain level of convenience, usually at a discounted price, but what if there are free spots nearby? Or cheaper ones? SpotHero only has a limited view into what parking options are available to you.

Suspend your imagination a little as I propose the next phase: A smart car with 'SmartPark,' which uses GPS to provide a map view of all available parking spaces - as in, every metered spot, but also the free spot someone just got out of - in a certain mile radius from your car. When you are ready to find a parking space, your windshield, via augmented reality, will display a small map of parking spaces available that you can navigate to. Each would have a signifier that meet the following preferences:

  • Is it free? If not, what does it cost and for how long?
  • Does your car fit (GPS would provide space length and match it with your car's length)?
  • Is it permit parking with only a limited window? When was the last time someone came by to check permits?
  • How far do you have to walk to your final destination?

The list can go on.

Screen Shot 2017-11-30 at 1.30.19 PM.png

This is just a quick, incomplete sketch but you see the open space indicated as you approach it and your display offers how the space's information matches your preferences. In addition, your smart car would learn your preferences and the signifier (color could be one option but need to consider accessibility) would represent how many of these needs are met by each space.

This could incorporate SpotHero information, as opposed to competing with it. It's all for the sake of providing the most complete picture for the driver of her parking options when she needs them.

UI/UX Mantra

In establishing our digital experience team at Marsh, we decided it was important we have a mission that we could always come back to remind us of our direction and the purpose of our work.

What follows is what I came up with. Along with being our team mantra, this would also help communicate our values to clients (both internal and external). As you may notice, I am indebted to great thinkers like Dieter Rams and Jakob Nielsen for some of these principles I espouse:

Before we get started, we’d like to introduce ourselves: we are the Marsh Digital Experience Team. We’re excited to work with you, but first we want to share something with you that should help you understand us a little better and what we believe in when it comes to design.

Our approach to design and digital properties is always centered around the user. Whether we are able to gather direct user input (recommended and preferred) or indirect user input (via user experts), the result is the same: a solution that considers the users' needs and goals every step of the way. A solution that leaves a positive, memorable impression on the user so that when he/she encounters Marsh again (in any form), that is the baseline.

How do we do that?

We can’t give away all of our design secrets, but we can share some principles we always strive to follow.

Our design and our content are clear. It isn’t necessarily brief, but it is clear. Those can often go hand in hand, but we err on the side of clarity.

Our design is focused. It is not screaming for attention in multiple places, or making you question what to look at first. Its focus allows the user to focus. It offers a direct path to follow, no matter where you are going.

Our design is deliberate and it is intentional. Everything is there for a reason. Nothing is superfluous. If there is something extra, it has a specific, measured purpose. We scrutinize everything to make sure only what is essential is present.

Our design is measured. We know the purpose of what we include in our design because we have tested it and measured it and shown that it is useful to the user. And we continue to measure each component, because as user behaviors change, our design must adapt accordingly.

Our design is minimal. As Dieter Rams would say, “good design is as little design as possible.” Good design should make you do, not think. When that is the case, less is more, and that is how we like to operate.

Finally, our design makes whatever we create useful. Ultimately, we are here to improve the user experience of our products. If it looks good but isn’t useful to the user, it isn’t worth pursuing. If it offers delight but isn’t useful to the user, it still isn’t worth pursuing. Until we know we’ve provided a useful tool to the user, we will not rest.

So that is our promise to you. Without it, we could get off easy (but we wouldn’t want that). We hold ourselves to these principles because we believe in them, and we hope by working with us, you will learn to as well.

CTA buses and trains: Designing for the cowpaths

If there is one thing that can ruin a perfectly good morning (or be the cherry on top of a long day), it's when you're waiting for the train or the bus, and when one finally pulls up, the current occupants won't move to accomodate more people. If only the current riders would squeeze in a little more, a handful of people wouldn't have to wait for that next train or bus. And no, I'm not asking for this.

It's always the same spots: near the ends of the train car, or towards the back of the bus. Sometimes, in a weirdly ironic twist, a seat will be left open because nobody wants to take it, deferring to someone else who might need it. That's awful chivalrous, but also wasted space.

And I get it: people want their own personal space. They've come from their apartment or home where they have relative freedom of movement, and they are going to a place of work where they probably have their own space as well, so why not in between? And as mentioned previously, it is early in the morning and they're fresh and clean or it's been a long day and they don't want to be pressed up against another person.

It's also a matter of location convenience. If a person knows she will be getting off in four stops, she probably doesn't want to position herself in a spot where she is going to have to maneuver around multiple people to exit. So she may stand closer to an exit. What is the threshold, though, for someone getting off 'soon?' Five stops or less? More? I must admit: I do this. If my stop is five stops or less or 10 minutes away, I will stand near the exit. I will do everything I can to move so people can get off or go around me. I'd rather do that then try to snake my way out 5-10 bodies deep from the middle of the train/bus.

As a keen observer of CTA/train politics/logistics, what ends up happening is that those standing often congregate near the exits. Maybe it's because they want to disturb the least amount of people when getting out, maybe they like to be near the door in the unlikely event of an emergency, maybe because it offers the most room (at least initially). Whatever the reason, crowds tend to form around the exits and not spread out down the aisles.

Finally, it's about empathy. When someone secures a spot on the train or the bus, the stress and anxiety of finding a spot quickly evaporates. It doesn't always transfer over to thinking about how to accomodate others. Even if someone was just in that position a few minutes ago, again, getting ready for a full day of work or winding down from one, sometimes empathy for the fellow rider gets deprioritized. We're dealing with an empathy gap here.

How quickly we forget the last time we were frantically looking for room and someone squeezed for us! How often we forget to pay it forward! But it happens. This certianly isn't the behavior of all people, but it's a pretty common occurrence: the 56 Milwaukee bus pulls up at Grand/Halsted/Milwaukee in the morning with riders shoulder-to-shoulder with the bus driver and nobody moves. Crestfallen, you check your phone for the next bus arrival. Then as the bus pulls away, you see there's room for at least three people in the back of that bus.

Every time I've thought about the design implications of this, I come back to the same thing: we have to design for the cowpaths. I've thought about the seating arrangement on New York train cars that maximize space by having the seats along the wall face in, but we have train cars in Chicago arranged like that and it doesn't completely solve the problem. They may provide more standing room, but they don't fully address the cowpaths. People still congregate near exits, choose their location based on convenience, and have a lack of empathy.

Before jumping to any design solutions, there's a lot more research to be done. First of all, can I back up my observations quantitatively and qualitatively? It will also help to find where the research has already been done (see articles in Fast Company and Vox). A competitive analysis of subway cars/buses would be informative. What new issues arise and need to be anticipated with those new designs?

Before going back to school and getting a Masters of Science in HCI, I considered urban planning because I was fixated on solving this problem. Funny how I found my way back to it, albeit via a different route (no pun intended). It is my dream to come up with a successful design - I've got my work cut out for me.

The future of keyboards

I love a good laptop keyboard - the feel of the buttons under my fingers, the gentle sound of tapping, the subtle, tactile feedback, the contained arrangement of keys, the elegant flatness.

I hate typing on the iPhone. It's too cramped. So many times 'A's become 'S's and vice versa. So much auto-correcting. So many missed autocorrects that I then need to aend an additional text for.

*send.

I seldom spell a google search on my iPhone perfectly. "Did you mean...?" You know I did.

And yet, my instinct is not to go to Siri every time. I don't want to broadcast every single text of mine to the world. I hardly like taking phone calls in public.

But I know some think voice is the future. I don't disagree. But I also don't think books will go away - so in the same vein, there will be room for keyboards.

Those projection keyboards look cool, but the reviews are mixed. The 'airplane magazine' nature of it (the reviewer nailed it), the fact that it requires an entirely different device, that it sounds like you're pushing buttons on a microwave, and that it's pretty inaccurate are all signs to me that the technology isn't there yet.

Voice certainly isn't perfect, either, but it has the benefit of learning in the wild that will help improve it over time. An effective projection keyboard will need to be available on the phone or tablet itself (no extra device), offer some more pleasant kind of feedback, and fix its accuracy.

Until then, voice looks the most promising for conveying text. The other senses don't really have a horse in this race. Unless you count Google Glasses resurgence. I'm not convinced.