A few months ago here at MEX we started to wonder what would happen if we brought together 100 people at the cutting edge of mobile technology and set them a user experience challenge in its most basic, raw and practical form. This is the story of what happened…

We’ve always believed user experience goes much deeper than the visual interface. This has been a consistent message, a mantra, since we launched the MEX initiative in 2004. All our research work and events focus on broadening the industry’s understanding of the myriad factors which determine a customer’s experience with a particular product.

With this in mind, we set out to design an exercise for the opening session of the May 2010 MEX Conference.

There were two objectives: firstly, to help participants understand the building blocks of customer experience in a tactile, practical way. Secondly, to establish a mandate for creativity from the very first session of the event - something we hoped would pay dividends later on when attendees worked together on other intellectual and practical challenges.

Upon taking their seats for the first session, every delegate found a sealed box in front of them.

Each box contained a different phone model and some packets of Sugru modeling clay.

The challenge was simple. Participants had 20 minutes to modify their phone model, using the Sugru, to make it either easier to use or more attractive.

Sugru is a fascinating substance. It feels like modeling clay, but adheres strongly to almost any surface. It cures in the air and, once set, remains flexible, yet is waterproof.

We were lucky enough to have Jane ni Dhulchaointigh, the inventor of Sugru, volunteer to come along to MEX and inspire delegates with the story of Sugru’s creation and some examples of how it is already being used.

Jane pointed to the re-emerging trend among customers to ‘hack’ their own user experience improvements onto products. Renewed interest in self-building, growing awareness of sustainability and a desire to express ownership by modifying mass produced, impersonal devices is fueling a generation of physical hackers. There’s a wonderful gallery on the Sugru site showing the diverse ways in which the substance is being used.

We had no idea how the participants would react to the exercise - we had given them no warning this would be their first task at the conference - but the scene which unfolded at MEX was fascinating.

There was an immediate and unexpected move to share, compare and contrast. The participants were seated around shared tables and, upon opening their boxes, the ice was quickly broken as participants from very different parts of the world started to exchange colours of Sugru and explore the wide range of different phones we’d provided (everything from high-end touchscreen slates to low-cost clamshells).

We also quickly learned that scissors (to open the Sugru packets) and hand wipes (Sugru is not sticky, but can leave a slight residue on your skin) were useful additions - luckily we had all these available.

This represented a strong start for our second objective. MEX is a purpose-driven event - the participants are there to create a collective response to specific issues - so the success of each conference is heavily dependent on how well we can get people from different backgrounds, countries and job functions working across language and knowledge barriers. The communal spirit in which everyone approached this exercise helped to establish an atmosphere of shared adventure which persisted for the full two days.

We were less certain about whether such a low-fi approach to modeling the user experience would deliver on our other objective: focusing attention on the range of aspects outside the software UI which influence customer perceptions. Here again, though, our expectations were exceeded.

The models produced in the 20 minutes allocated covered a broad spectrum of user experience enhancements. They seemed to fall into 5 categories:

1. Anthropomorphism - adding human or animal characteristics to the phone model, giving it a particular attitude or a personality the modeler felt reflected the style of the object.

   

2. Addition - increasing the phone’s capability with something like a stand, hook or even a gaming controller.

   

3. Refinement - improving the usability of an existing feature, such as increasing the size of buttons or adding more grip.

   

4. Combination - integrating the functionality of another object onto the phone model, like the classic Swiss Army knife concept.

   

5. Decoration - visual and tactile enhancements to the external appearance of the device, from patterns to a branded logo (not sure how Apple would feel about seeing their logo on a pink clamshell!).

   

While the tools were purposely very low tech (and therefore did not exclude or intimidate, as sketching often can), the result was a remarkably comprehensive and tangible examination of the 5 main areas where physical differentiation can impact the user experience. Do you think there are other aspects which we missed? It’d be great to get your feedback in the blog comments.

The exercise concluded with every participant putting their model back in the box and handing it to a member of our staff. We then stored the models overnight so the Sugru could cure. As participants left the conference on Day 2, they were re-united with their models to take home, along with a little thank you from the MEX tea.

The full gallery of photos from the modeling exercise is available on Picasa, along with a separate gallery of photos from the rest of MEX 2010.

On balance, we found it to be an effective workshop. There were some very positive comments from the participants and we know a number of them have since gone on to use Sugru again. The more in-depth challenges which participants took on in the main breakout sessions later in the event also resulted in some of our best ever outputs from a MEX Conference, due in no small part to the creative mandate established in this first exercise.

We have since developed the workshop further and used it in our consulting work - the results were again very pleasing.

We’re now working on something equally engaging for the next MEX Conference in December 2010 (registration now open). Suggestions welcome!

Debate welcome in the blog comments, by email and Twitter.

Touch interfaces are proliferating, but there are still instances where the tactile satisfaction of a physical button delivers a better user experience. As the trend towards interfaces defined primarily in software and touch accelerates, the mobile industry should consider where in the design process it makes sense to invest in ‘real’ controls.

Buttons reward us. They invite us to interact by broadcasting their function and then satisfy our tactile cravings by providing a distinct response. It speaks to our innate human desire to find useful tools with which to influence our surroundings.

There are certain tactile responses which, at a subconscious level, we find extremely satisfying. For instance, most adults still dissolve into a child-like state of fascination when presented with a sheet of bubble wrap to ‘pop’. I personally find an inexplicable joy in the rotary movement of the volume control on my car’s sound system and the solid, metallic dial which controls the suspension lock-out on my bike.

The level of satisfaction created by these controls is determined by a combination of factors:

1. How effectively the control achieves the desired result. The speed and ease with which it allows us to create change is directly proportional to how connected we feel to the experience.
2. The continuous feedback it provides while in use. A rotary dial which spins freely without any ‘feeling’ is not nearly as satisfying as one which has intermediate ‘clicks’ or continuous resistance feedback.
3. Whether we can determine the state of a control at-a-glance. A button which stays depressed when in use or a rotary dial with printed stage indicators allows us to start our next interaction with fore-knowledge of how we need to manipulate it.
4. Ease of manipulation in proportion to its importance. Jog wheels used repeatedly for relatively inconsequential actions like scrolling should be much easier to manipulate than, say, a power or reset button where the user would never want to press it by accident.

Touchscreens offer almost unlimited scope for interface customisation, but they are, in essence, designed for direct manipulation: cause + result. You touch your finger to a sound slider icon (cause) and drag to increase the volume (result).

In contrast, physical controls provide an additional layer where the user experience may be enriched: the interaction flow becomes cause + effect + result. You twist the sound dial (cause), you feel the resistance (effect) and the volume increases (result). If correctly implemented, the effect layer can help to differentiate products and become a valuable part of the experience.

The real challenge is in knowing where in the product design such an approach is appropriate and how to make best use of the constrained bill of materials budget to achieve results.

A few scenarios where physical controls have an advantage over virtual, touchscreen interactions spring immediately to mind (I’d also be very interested to hear from readers who have other suggestions):

1. Cold weather environments, where users are likely to be wearing gloves. In these situations, most capactive touchscreens won’t work at all (they require skin contact to activate the touch interaction) and even resistive touchscreens will be difficult to manipulate with any degree of accuracy. Essential functions which need to be accessed on the move could benefit from direct button access.
2. High dirt, grease or moisture environments. There are numerous scenarios where this may be a factor, from devices designed for use in the kitchen (have you tried following a recipe on a touchscreen device while your hands are dirty from cooking?) to entire geographic regions where dust and sand make touchscreens easily scratchable.
3. Interactions which require two or more distinct steps of movement. For instance, a camera button where the first press activates the focusing and the second press takes the photo.
4. The reasssurance of instant visual or tactile confirmation. One of the most consistently popular features of devices such as the iPhone and Palm has been the physical ’silent’ switch, allowing users to see instantly whether their device is in ‘mute’ mode when in a meeting. Some users even make use of this without ever looking at the switch, simply feeling for the ‘on/off’ position in their pockets.
5. High volumes of text input. Advances in graphical layouts and auto-correction software have made virtual keyboards viable on touchscreen devices, but there is still a gulf between the amount of text entered by users with a physical keyboard and those using on-screen input. The travel, feedback and spacing possible with physical keys remains unsurpassed for speed of text entry.
6. Reduced dexterity. Age, disability, illness and even finger size can all have an impact on our ability to perform the nuanced gestures required by some touchscreens. Physical controls can make it easier for these users to manipulate the key functions of their device.

However, despite these specific attributes, the advantages of touchscreens and abstracting much of the UI into software are clear. Accepting that touchcscreens will be a key feature of most mobile devices in the future, we are faced with choices.

On the one hand, we may attempt to create a ‘pure’ touch UI, where almost everything is controlled through screen interactions - Apple is the most prominent example of this. Alternatively, we might add buttons and controls for a few primary functions (such as back, scroll and search) - this method is favoured by many Android-powered devices. A third choice is to offer a significant physical alternative for input, for instance by adding a keyboard, or an optical scroll-pad - devices such as the Blackberry Torch, Palm Pre, Nokia N97 and X3 fall into this category.

The user experience challenge is to balance the speed and convenience gained from dedicated buttons with the additional latency which results from users switching between touch and physical input methods.

There is an argument that less is more in these situations.

Consider the iPhone, for instance. Although the raw speed of text input through the iPhone’s on-sreen keyboard may be slower than a physical keyboard, the overall time to complete common tasks like entering a web search or typing a text message may actually be quicker because there is less latent time lost through the user having to switch between ‘touch’ mode and ‘keyboard’ mode. Consistency tends to result in faster, more satisfying interactions.

This is particularly true when the user is required to switch the orientation of their device from portrait to landscape to access the keys, as with handsets such as the T-Mobile G1 and Nokia N97. This action is often sufficiently time consuming and disruptive to ensure it is only ever used when the user knows they are going to enter a significant amount of text. However, with many of these devices, designers seem to assume the keyboard will be the dominant method of text input and therefore invest little effort in providing easy on-screen alternatives.

There are now several devices which combine portrait orientation touchscreens with a keyboard, reducing the time and effort required to switch between modes. The Blackberry Torch and Palm Pre both offer this with slider form factors, while the Nokia X3 has a 12-key physical keypad for fast texting and a touchscreen in a candybar form factor. Crucially, the X3 is optimised for single-handed use, something we are seeing less of with the expanding size of touchscreen slates.

In future, haptic effects and electro-deformable polymers (EDP) may make it possible to simulate the true tactile feel of physical buttons. EDPs will actually allow areas of the touchscreen surface to raise and lower, controlled by software, to give buttons real feeling beneath our finger tips.

In the interim I would urge device manufacturers to consider investing in the development of their own distinct tactile palettes. Integrated across touchscreens and physical controls, there should be a specific Nokia, Sony Ericsson or Motorola ‘feel’, which guarantees users will experience the same quality of button travel or smoothness of touchscreen glass across the product range.

Nokia managed to tie hundreds of millions of users into an ongoing upgrade cycle because they were familiar with the visual UI. I believe there is an equally valuable opportunity for all manufacturers to build customer loyalty through a consistent approach to tactile quality.

In addition, manufacturers should consider specific tactile highlights for each device, where one or more of the physical controls is highlighted as a key part of the product design. It should deliver a particular advantage over touchscreen interaction, such as a well-designed two-stage camera key or a scroll wheel ideal for reading emails.

Debate welcome in the blog comments, by email and Twitter.

Handset manufacturers, network operators and software companies have for some time been falling over themselves to win over third party developers to their platforms. After attending Nokia’s less than successful Ovi Developer day in London, I couldn’t help but ponder whether this industry infighting is in their long-term interests and those of their customers?

These companies share a simple, common objective: increasing the value of their main product offering (be that handsets for Nokia, network capacity for operators or advertising for Google) by ensuring as many applications as possible are available within their eco-system, preferably exclusively. This is what drives all those developer conferences, free handsets and partnership marketing budgets.

It is hard to dispute the initial logic of this premise: customers will naturally be inclined to buy products which allow them access to the best services. Apple is the benchmark example, where the availability of iOS apps is a key selling point for the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad. In our consumer research we are seeing increasing numbers of customers making handset and operator purchasing decisions based on the quality and economy of access they provide to specific branded services.

However, numerous companies in the mobile industry are simply trying to beat Apple’s App Store at its own game without stopping to consider if this is in their long-term strategic interests. Apple has established the targets with its app store metrics and now a long list of competitors, including Google, Nokia, Microsoft, Qualcomm, RIM, a consortium of operators backing the Wholesale Applications Community (WAC) and numerous others are caught in a race to catch up.

How many of these companies have stopped to question the metrics (e.g. number of apps, downloads and developers) they are using to measure their success? If Google’s Android Market or Nokia’s Ovi Store outgrow the number of apps in the iOS App Store, will this - ultimately - improve the bottom line for these companies and the satisfaction of their customers?

It would be fascinating to put an exact number on the amount spent by the mobile industry to support proprietary third party application development in the last 2 years alone. The ever increasing complexity and number of these developer programmes is driving billions of dollars of spending each year, across events, staffing costs, administering the app stores and partnership marketing. Some, such as Microsoft, have even started to offer direct financial incentives to developers to create third party apps for their platforms.

It raises a pertinent question: how long can so many individual companies support so many individual app stores and so many individual platforms? The economics simply do not add up. Every company, with the possible exception of Apple, is operating their app store and developer programme at a substantial loss. This cannot continue indefinitely.

We track the quarterly performance of all of the world’s major handset manufacturers with our MEX Handset Industry Insight service across a number of metrics, including market share, unit shipments and profitability. Since 2007, the combined average annual profit margin of the 5 major handset manunfacturers (Nokia, Samsung, LG, Motorola and Sony Ericsson) has fallen from 12.5% (2007), to 9.4% (2008) and further to 6.3% in 2009. In Q2 2010, it dipped yet again, reaching 5.3%. In real terms, this means the total combined profit made by these 5 companies has fallen from about USD 15.1 billion in 2007 to USD 5.8 billion in 2009.

They are caught in a negative spiral. On the one hand, they are cutting handset prices so as to grow market share and rapidly provide an attractive target audience for developers. On the other, the cost of wooing developers and supporting them is increasing.

The only mitigation comes from the resulting app store revenues, but the fact that none of them are willing to share much detail about these numbers speaks for itself: they do not come anywhere close to covering their costs. Only Apple, the most successful, has released some figures, stating a couple of months ago that in approximately 2 years of operation it had distributed USD 1 billion to its developers as part of their 70% revenue share - this translates to about USD 429m for Apple itself.

The app store concept is a means to an end: enabling deep personalisation of customers’ user experience with a range of relevant, affordable services. However, there is a strong argument that the likes of Nokia, WAC and Microsoft will fail to achieve this end by simply trying to replicate the iOS App Store. The resulting fragmentation will result in a race to the bottom, with platform providers subsidising low quality app stores in the hope of gaining enough momentum to surpass early market leaders like Google and Apple.

Soon app stores will start to undercut the currently accepted norm of a 70/30 developer revenue split in an attempt to gain short term advantage and price competition will make many of these stores even less viable to operate.

There needs to be rapid consolidation in the number of platforms and developer programmes. Companies currently pursuing the internal development of their own proprietary app store would do well to re-evaluate whether that money could be better invested in a combination of user experience enhancements to their core products and co-operative efforts to make mobile application development more accessible, lower cost and standardised.

Turning specifically to Nokia, their London developer day provided an unfortunate reminder of the many potential pitfalls facing those with ambitions of creating a successful platform and app store.

There was, from the outset, an almost apologetic tone adopted by Nokia. They spoke of the ‘tough conversations’ they had with developers a year ago and the efforts they were making to improve the Ovi Store and their developer support. As a result, the atmosphere in the room was dominated by a sense of metaphorical distance between the Nokia staff and the developer audience, despite almost every Nokia spokesperson imploring the attendees to get involved and create a community spirit for the sessions.

It was obvious Nokia failed to achieve the tone they were aiming for. This was confirmed in the conversations I had with attending developers. While intrigued by the possibilities, they seemed unconvinced Nokia could provide much to help them and even more skeptical Nokia’s Ovi Store could provide as attractive a marketplace as the iOS App Store or Android Market.

An observation: I didn’t see a single Nokia handset being used by any of the audience. Google Nexus Ones, Apple iPhones and Blackberry Bolds were the most common - although I did notice one outre individual sporting a rarely seen Sony Ericsson Aspen (Windows Mobile, Qwerty and touchscreen in a candybar format - and about as successful as it sounds…).

The session was a brutal contrast with the triumphant, self congratulatory and almost cult-like behaviour in evidence at Apple and Google developer events. While a certain amount can be attributed to geography and the native cynicism of a London audience, there was much Nokia could have done to improve the event itself.

Despite hiring a large and generally well-regarded private members club for their exclusive use, Nokia made several basic event organisation mistakes. For instance, Nokia’s UK managing director opened the session by congratulating himself on the session being ’standing room’ only. This is a classic mistake made by event organisers focused on their own performance rather than the experience of their attendees: ’standing room only’ may sound great when the organiser tells their boss how the event went, but for delegates it simply means you’ve failed to provide them with a seat.

As the room grew more crowded, the temperature rose and the grumbles from the audience increased. No one wants to do business in a hot and cramped environment.

Several of the developers I spoke with also felt they had been mis-sold. The invitation clearly stated: ‘There won’t be any PowerPoint presentations’, yet there were several hours of these, mainly delivered as monologues despite Nokia’s invitation for the audience to ask questions. When questions were asked, a considerable percentage of them could not be answered by Nokia’s spokespeople and were instead requested to be ‘taken off-line’.

There’s seems little point investing the not inconsiderable costs of running such an event if it fails to fulfill its promise of an open and constructive dialogue. Nokia could have saved a great deal of money and the audience could have saved a great deal of time by simply looking at the presentations online.

There were, however, some interesting statements made by the Nokia staff and - for me at least - these cast new light on the company’s long-term strategy.

The move to its cross-platform Qt application framework is accelerating. It is clear Nokia are making a major effort to simplify third party development across their range of products by adding Qt as a layer on top of Symbian and Meego. Crucially, this will include allowing developers to bundle the Qt framework with their applications, so if a user downloads a Qt app to a device which doesn’t already have Qt installed, it will be added automatically. This should help grow Qt’s footprint on the large number of Nokia Series 60 devices already in the market.

The theory, as ever, is that Qt will allow applications to be written once and ported easily to a wide range of different devices, from Series 60 candybars costing EUR 150 up to EUR 600 tablets running Meego. Nokia went to some lengths to stress that developers should no longer think about developing Symbian Apps or Meego Apps - they didn’t need to worry about the underlying OS - instead they could just code for Qt and take advantage of the platform framework. The phrase Nokia used was: “This is about apps for people.”

While this is a seductive hypothesis, developers I spoke with were unconvinced. There was a general feeling that apps advanced enough to be valuable and genuinely different would still need to be coded at the native level.

Nokia also stressed they saw Java as the primary development environment for Series 40, with mobile web and Qt reserved for Symbian and Meego. There are two major issues with this: firstly, Series 40 devices still represent the majority of the 1.2 billion Nokia devices currently in use worldwide, so the new Qt tools and support will do little to assist those targeting these devices. Secondly, it is surprising and disappointing not to see Nokia promoting mobile web development across all of its platforms, when for many developers this will provide the quickest and easiest way to roll out services to Series 40 users.

Nokia are working to reduce the costs associated with development on all of their platforms. They charge a one-off EUR 50 regsistration fee, but after that the tools are free and submitting your application for approval is free. In addition, they are committed to offering tools for PC, Mac and Linux - in addition to their web-based app wizards - to ensure you don’t need to buy new kit to start creating Nokia applications.

Starting on 9th August in the UK, there will be a TV advertising campaign to support the Ovi Store. Developers were shown a preview of the commercial, but unfortunately it provided yet more evidence of the gulf between the community spirit of iOS, Android and Nokia developers. Whereas such previews often lead to spontaneous applause and cheering at Apple and Google events, Nokia received a hesitant and subdued reaction, despite the somewhat desperate requests from the Nokia spokesperson for more support. It was let down by weak advertising creative and the overall negative atmosphere in the room caused by Nokia’s event management failings.

It is, of course, a positive for developers that Nokia is investing in this kind of marketing, but I couldn’t help but feel they are failing to capture people’s imagination.

Further evidence of this was provided by Nokia’s engagement of Marvellous, a mobile marketing agency, to ‘launch app-led campaigns which capture the social mood around the UK’. The exercise smacks of a misguided leap onto the social media bandwagon.

Nokia have Marvellous creating a series of light-hearted, short-term apps such as an ‘instant marriage’ game, which is intended to talk you through your vows with a mate when sitting at the pub. Nokia’s spokesperson emphasised they saw these kind of ‘buzzy’, fun applications as key to capturing column inches in the press and generating awareness in social media channels.

It is a waste of money and a case in point example of how easy it is for a company to become distracted from its core mission of providing useful, appealing products for their customers. It is true that devices like the iPhone have benefited from the free publicity generated by the availability of interesting applications, but this is a symptom of good user experience and a vibrant development community. Nokia have fallen into the trap of paying to recreate the desireable symptoms of their competitors rather than looking at the root cause of their rivals’ success.

Of course, Nokia will not be alone in looking back ruefully a few years hence on the wastage of such ’social media’ nonsense campaigns - they have become de-rigeur for companies who want to be seen at the forefront of marketing practice.

Many of the developers present had come specifically to spend time with the N8, but inexplicably the demonstration of this device formed only a small part of the presentations. Everyone I spoke with also expressed disappointment that, unlike Google, Samsung and Microsoft, Nokia failed to provide attendees with a free device to start developing with. These kind of giveaways have become an expectation at developer events.

The N8 itself has several impressive characteristics. The use of good quality brushed aluminum and availability of several colour choices will be a strong selling point for many customers. The imaging capabilities, with a 12 megapixel camera and HD video recording and output are exceptional. When it hits the market, it will establish a new benchmark for music and video quality with features like Dolby 5.1 sound.

The Ovi Store has also been re-vamped in preparation for the N8. The new UI is easier to use, and has been re-written in Qt rather than web run-time, making it significantly faster and smoother.

However, weaknesses remain. The home screen is a user experience disaster. It is very cluttered and interaction flow is inconsistent.

I found it quite telling that ’single tap’ interactions (i.e. you no longer need to click twice on an icon to open it) were cited by Nokia as a key new feature of the device. This is 2010.

There were some specific weaknesses of Nokia’s London forum (easily avoided by taking some basic classes in event management), but many of the deeper problems it revealed are shared by all those companies playing a desperate game of catch-up with the iOS App Store.

These companies must consider the following:

• Long term, do you really believe your particular proprietary app store, running on your particular proprietary platform, is viable? The test of that viability should be: does it enhance the majority of your customer’s experience, is it profitable and can it be run without distracting you from your core business?
• Is a replication of the iOS app store and Apple’s business model the best way to advance the concept of customer-led personalisation? Simply surpassing Apple’s metrics may not actually be in the long-term interests of your company.
• How many of your resources are currently dedicated to catch-up exercises with your competitors versus fostering your own, independent and customer insight-led product enhancements? Third party developers will flock to platforms which, firstly, inspire them personally, secondly, are selling well and, thirdly, make it as simple as possible to add new features. We see very few companies which are focused on these priorities and too many allowing themselves to be led by current industry trends.

Debate welcome in the blog comments, by email and Twitter.

The winners of the 2010 MEX User Experience Awards were announced on 19th May at an evening reception in London. Hosted on the 1st night of the 7th international MEX User Experience Conference, the Awards were attended by 100 leading mobile industry executives, who were entertained with a special summer BBQ party. The Awards were sponsored by Immersion (Silver sponsor) and DCKTN (Innovation sponsor).

The MEX Awards challenge the world’s most talented students, designers and companies to create cutting edge mobile and multi-platform user experience innovations. Contestants must identify their target user and then illustrate with video, screenshots and storyboards how they would meet the needs of that particular customer.

You can read about the winners and short-lists, judging process and judge profiles below. All of the entries from both 2010, 2009 and 2008 can be viewed in the MEX Awards Gallery.

To find out more about sponsoring future MEX Mobile User Experience Awards, please contact us

MX Series | Winner: 2010 MEX User Experience Innovator of the Year

The MEX User Experience Innovator of the Year is chosen from across all 4 categories as an example of how great user-centred design can help the mobile industry to create a genuinely new experience for its customers.

Left to right: Juha Christensen, Chairman and CEO of Cloudmade (Judge); Nigel Waller, CEO of Movirtu (Winner); Marek Pawlowski, Founder of MEX (Organiser & Host)

MX series Designed by… Movirtu with frog design Judges’ quote: “We chose MX Series because it highlights the real user experience needs of the billions of new customers in emerging markets.” The MX series provides empowerment to the disempowered. It includes the MXShare, which when installed in the core of a mobile network establishes a virtual mobile phone system enabling people who cannot afford to buy a handset to make and receive calls, SMSs and messages using other people’s phones or street-side payphones; MXPay which allows […] Full details

Runners up for the 2010 MEX User Experience Innovator of the Year…

topsee london Designed by… lastminute.com labs topsee is a mobile application that shows the top things in a city near your current location. This entry is for our iPhone app that covers central London. topsee encourages a spontaneous and exploratory attitude by highlighting unexpected and interesting things in the area, and by controversially not allowing any kind of search. There are plenty […] Full details

On - life is better on Designed by… Remy Bourganel & Seren > On makes your mobile smarter It helps you be yourself with everyone, and keeps you close to the people who matter. > share the right things with the right people your contacts organised in worlds: different status, availability, location and voicemail to different people. > stay close to people who matter move your favorite people onto your homescreen and […] Full details

Woobius Eye | Winner: Professional category

The professional category is for products developed by companies in the mobile industry but not yet launched commercially.

Left to right: David Marutiak, User Community Ambassador, Vodafone (Judge); Bob Leung, James Goodfellow and Daniel Tenner of Woobius (Winners); Marek Pawlowski, Founder of MEX (Organiser & Host)

Woobius eye - Real-time visual chat Designed by… Woobius Judges’ quote: “We chose Woobius Eye because it represents a great multi-platform customer experience and focuses on the needs of a group of users who can really benefit from new ways of combining visual and audible communication.” Woobius eye allows users to collaborate in a more natural way over drawings and images, without needing to meet in person. Users can communicate desktop-to-desktop, phone-to-desktop and phone-to-phone. Snap or upload a picture, draw on it using your mouse or your phone’s touch interface, and others will be able to see exactly what you mean, […] Full details

Runners up in the Professional category…

MX series Designed by… frog design The MX series provides empowerment to the disempowered. It includes the MXShare, which when installed in the core of a mobile network establishes a virtual mobile phone system enabling people who cannot afford to buy a handset to make and receive calls, SMSs and messages using other people’s phones or street-side payphones; MXPay which allows […] Full details

dxtr - 3 button mobile interface Designed by… Ribot A motion interface design concept for a simplified mobile experience, that anyone could use. Created in response to research gathered from the feasibility study focusing on improving the experience on touchscreen devices for people with dexterity impairment. An interface and experience that has very simple information heirarchy, requires little tap resolution and visually does not […] Full details

BlazeBroker | Winner: Freelance category

The freelance category is for products developed by self-employed individuals.

Left to right: Terry Warmbier, Director of Business Development, Immersion Corporation (Sponsor); Kai Brunner, designer of BlazeBroker (Winner); Marek Pawlowski, Founder of MEX (Organiser & Host)

BlazeBroker Designed by… Kai Brunner Judges’ quote: “We chose BlazeBroker because it is a great example of how focusing on the needs of specific users - in this case real estate agents - can create a great mobile customer experience.” BlazeBroker is the prototype for a multi-platform mobile application for selling commercial real estate properties. It is designed to run on touchscreen tablets such as the HP Slate, the iPad, and the Google Tablet. BlazeBroker makes it possible for commercial real estate professionals to access real-time market data; generate prospects; quickly analyze the financial performance of […] Full details

Runner up in the Freelance category…

Telepresent Robot Designed by… Vincent MK Lau Using the ultra low cost tele-present robot, allows one to control the robot remotely and globally, with real time video and audio. For example, working parent can took care of children remotely. During lunch time or business trip, one can see the children and home situation remotely, walk around in home with easy control of movement, […] Full details

ON | Winner: Commercial category

The commercial category is for products developed by companies and already launched in the market.

Left to right: Jo Rabin, co-founder of MobileMonday London (Awards Presenter); Giles Corbett and Remy Bourganel of Orange Vallee (Winners); Marek Pawlowski, Founder of MEX (Organiser & Host)

On - life is better on Designed by… Orange Vallee Judges’ quote: “We chose ON because it is, at heart, a multi-platform mobile user experience which brings a truly human dimension to communications.” > On makes your mobile smarter It helps you be yourself with everyone, and keeps you close to the people who matter. > share the right things with the right people your contacts organised in worlds: different status, availability, location and voicemail to different people. > stay close to people who matter move your favorite people onto your homescreen and […] Full details

Runners up in the Commercial category…

SPB Mobile Shell 3.5 Designed by… SPB Software SPB Mobile Shell is a unique user interface for Windows Mobile devices. It was updated to SPB Mobile Shell 3.5 in 2009 to make it more interactive and offer eye-catching 3D visual effects (including browsing emails and text messages). SPB Mobile Shell brings a more interactive and enjoyable experience to mobile users. Now it’s easy to […] Full details

topsee london Designed by… lastminute.com labs topsee is a mobile application that shows the top things in a city near your current location. This entry is for our iPhone app that covers central London. topsee encourages a spontaneous and exploratory attitude by highlighting unexpected and interesting things in the area, and by controversially not allowing any kind of search. There are plenty […] Full details

Freedom Interactive Map | Winner: Student category

The student category is for products developed by full-time students or young designers.

Left to right: Eddie Murphy, Network Development Manager, DCKTN (Sponsor); Adrian Bliss of Brunel University (Winner); Marek Pawlowski, Founder of MEX (Organiser & Host)

‘Freedom’ Interactive Map Designed by… Adrian Bliss Judges’ quote: “We chose the Freedom Interactive Map because it was an inspiring example from a student designer, showing what the future of mapping might look like and how this can help users in their daily lives.” Imitating the humble OS map holder, the ‘freedom’ interactive map is a recognisable and intuitive OLED interface that accompanies and guides the user throughout walks, intended to encourage the user explore the undiscovered environments and surroundings in the world around them - whilst avoiding the paradigm shift of product technology that so often intimidates and […] Full details

Runners up in the Student category…

Pulse - Communication for Kids Designed by… Simon Smith There is growing concern among parents that children are possessing mobile phones at ages that are far too young. Pulse addresses these concerns by providing a platform on which children can communicate with their friends in the simplist of ways. Designed with the child hearing aid users in mind, Pulse originated from a desire to […] Full details

Viva - Stay Connected Designed by… Heeral Roy Sharma Viva is a very easy to use communication device targeted to solve the problem of loneliness for senior citizens. It can be used to send and receive pictures and video files to a selected number of people defined as a family. It’s an asynchronous medium of communicating one to many where everyone can send messages […] Full details

Meet the judges

The judging criteria

These are the criteria the judges used in their deliberations:

1. Has the designer genuinely understood and empathised with the needs of the target users?
2. How well are these needs reflected in the user experience?
3. Does the entry represent a different way of thinking or include an original innovation?
4. Could the entry be highlighted as a best practice example to inspire user experience improvements in the industry?

Extra credit will also be awarded if designers create a multi-platform experience, where several digital touchpoints (e.g. mobile phone + TV + PC) combine to make an overall experience greater than the sum of its parts.

The sponsors

Our thanks to Immersion (Silver Sponsor) and DCKTN (Innovation Sponsor) for supporting the MEX Awards.

If you would like to find out how your company can become a MEX sponsor, please contact Marek Pawlowski at mp@pmn.co.uk or on +44 7767 622957.

http://pmn.co.uk/mex/travel10.shtml

You’ll hear from 22 of the most eloquent, provocative and informed speakers we could find.

MEX is based around a 15-point Manifesto, challenging the industry to redefine the cutting edge of mobile and multi-platform user experience.

Everyone at MEX is assigned to a team and works with their team members during the breakout sessions to solve a user experience challenge. The teams are led by MEX-appointed expert facilitators, who will guide you through the process. Each group is also supported by a pair of illustrators to help visualise ideas.

All the presentations and ideas shared at MEX are combined to create a collective response to the Manifesto. After the event, all participants receive a complete package of videos, slides and sketches.

MEX is hosted at Wallacespace, a venue designed to provide all the ingredients for creating new ideas: natural light, interesting architecture, healthy brain food and the highest standards of personal service.

We’ll be announcing the winners of the 2010 MEX Awards at a special evening reception on 19th May. It starts immediately after the conference and all MEX participants are already on the guest list. There’ll be a summer BBQ, drinks and some great conversation.

Ever wondered what the MEX logo would look like if it was made from 100 phones? We always like to have one or two surprises at MEX to help people think creatively. You’ll like what we have planned for the opening session of the conference.

Source: Wireless Intelligence ]]> http://www.mobileuserexperience.com/?feed=rss2&p=892 http://www.mobileuserexperience.com/?p=891 http://www.mobileuserexperience.com/?p=891#comments Sat, 15 May 2010 20:52:23 +0000 Marek Pawlowski http://www.mobileuserexperience.com/?p=891 2.1bn

Source: Wireless Intelligence ]]> http://www.mobileuserexperience.com/?feed=rss2&p=891 http://www.mobileuserexperience.com/?p=890 http://www.mobileuserexperience.com/?p=890#comments Sat, 15 May 2010 20:51:15 +0000 Marek Pawlowski http://www.mobileuserexperience.com/?p=890 Over the next few editions of the newsletter we’ll be introducing you to the speakers at the MEX Conference on 19th/20th May 2010 in London.

Dr Jonas Landgren (M.Sc. and Ph.D. both in Informatics) studies the use and design of mobile technology and services for crisis and emergency response. Specifically, Jonas’ research focuses on how to design information technology that complies to time-critical and distributed work practices.
He is assistant professor at the Department of Applied IT, University of Gothenburg. He holds a MSc in informatics (1998) and a Ph.D. in informatics (2007) from University of Gothenburg, Sweden.
Jonas is the founder of the Crisis Response Lab, consisting of researchers from Gothenburg University, Chalmers University and the Viktoria Institute. His research is conducted in collaboration with Gothenburg fire & rescue services, the Swedish Rescue Services Agency as well as Swedish Emergency Management Agency. He is also involved in research-transfer projects with commercial organisations within civil security and mobile telecommunications.
Jonas regularly gives lectures nationally as well as internationally on his research to practitioners, industry and academia. In addition, Jonas is the co-founder of Ideaviate, a small technology design company, focusing on bringing low cost mobile services to a crisis response professional mass market.

His session is entitled ‘Multi-platform user experience design - learning from crisis situations‘. Jonas will also be one of the team facilitators for the MEX breakout sessions.

This 3 day event (8 - 10 June, London) organised by Brunel University provides a showcase for new design ideas created by the students. I’ve attended on several occasions in the past and always found it to be a hugely inspiring environment. There are numerous exhibits from the students, many of which bring a refreshing view to issues of user experience or mobile technology. Well worth a visit.