Some Crazy Stuff About Users…
Paramount. To us – nothing is worth doing without it.
High rates of wastage. ‘Blind Classifications’, skipping through data, not contributing to the organizational collective and worse.
The list is endless when you reflect back over your experience looking through the lenses of the user. For us – the user has been the focus since day one. It’s in everything we do. The Personas we design for are front and center in all conversations. Everything we design, argue about, whiteboard (and maybe even dream about!) is the user experience.
We believe firmly that good design enables good behavior and more effective usage – really what the security software industry owes you!
|End User Experience FIRST - Specific, tested and validated ‘look and feel’||An user interface that is relevant to the existing interfaces, nothing strange, nothing weird.||Increased user adoption rates, no (or very close to) training requirements, an engaged user base (dare we say – ‘a pleasurable user experience’?)||Why the **#$(%*( would tools you spend so much money on – be so rude and hostile to your users? It’s a waste, it’s bad for security – and eventually it’s going to be a ‘material’ item on your audit.|
|Optimized Clicks and Tabs|| We went through many design iterations – stripping out clicks and mouse travel (and many arguments – justified with testing). Just as important to power users - ||Mouse Travel? Eyeball movement? Tab Orders? - ALL OF IT MATTERS. Consider how many times each user will use this in a day, times, times, times… It Matters, and we did the work for you!||We still shake our collective heads when we see some designs and UIs.. Did they even test this? Have they even used it themselves? WTH! Tab orders need to work for ‘power users’, new users don’t need to huntfor information, it all needs to flow (and heatmaps too oh my!)|
|Users communicate BACK to IT – Weird right?||In our interfaces – should you choose to (and we recommend it) – when something is computed differently thanauser expects – they can tell you why. We call this ‘Data Owner Classification Guidance’||Fancy words to mean ‘We listen to the experts – our users’. Seems simple, but few do it. This was an underpinning to the majority of our infrastructure. Imagine how much more reliable when Jane from head of M&A says ‘this project name is ‘Confidential’ not ‘Public’, orthe Research Head updates a classification with the newest Brand Name product! More efficiency, more reliability, more effective classification||Seriously – why would you NOT listen to your data creators and users? They are the ones responsible, they know what data means what, and they are BEST positioned to build, augment and REFINE your classifications. No brainer for us. We hope it is for you too!|
|YOUR branding everywhere… NOT the software vendors’||In all modules, components and features visible to users – logos and text are simply updateablewith straight text and/orfancy HTML5 formatting (including video if you wish)links to your corporate policy portal or a fancy message from your boss!||To offset any risks ofcallinsto your helpdesk due to questions, to increase theacceptanceof your deploymentand most importantly – earn the trust of your users. This is a good thing!||We felt YOUR branding – NOT ours – was the most important design consideration here. Why would someone want to ‘promote’ a vendor brand directly to your users? Worse, why confuse them with ‘another techy’name. Use your branding, your logo and polite, reasonable and helpful text to engage your users.. We’re ok with it – we know you love us!|
|Engage your users efficiently||All components of the solutionareselectable, and de-selectable. Want the classification request to be ONLY on a File->Save action? No problem. Only Classify documents while they are being worked on – and don’t interrupt users? Done.||Benefits? Simple... how about being selective when asking your users for more information – or to validate computed ones? How about automatically classifying information for your general user population – but being more specific for the M&A folks? Why not ask the R&D folks to update classifications as they need updates – but don’t bother accounting (because you know how to find SSN’s[Símbolo])||Our research (and your own usage we’re sure) shows that ‘one size fits all’ doesn’t work – especially in a distributed work force. Why make everyone do the same things? Use your investment in roles and groups to be more selective (or tentative in your roll outs) and cognizant of the differences in the workforce. Pretty straight forward to us – we hope it is to you as well.|
|Acutally compute…||Our engines ACTUALLY scan the document contents - before we even get to the user! Imagine– a computer that computes! the engines utilize up to date (every 5 minutes and/or every launch) information to refresh the rulesets and classifications in scope. Always up to date, classifications guided by users themselves,an ‘agile’ environment.||Simple really. Classifications change all the time - Mergers and Acquisitionstargets change, product launches differ, regulations change, users THEMSELVES can guide the classifications. when you auto compute and analyze information sets (classifiy) and present to the user (display) – you should be reasonably sure and accurate – not completely off base. Including user feedback and flexibility in many functions gives you the best opportunity for that.||Ok, you have all of this compute infrastructure sitting around – what 20, 30, 1 Million Cores? Why is it not doing more for you? Foundationally for us – we feel that a user-based feedback loop to help augment (and shortly train) the infrastructure to what is correct and what is wrong – goes a long way to having incredible value. Make those CPUs work for you! Make them smarter! Stop annoying your users (really – we tested this – and THEY ARE ANNOYED!) with interruptions, answering the same questionand not even being half as smart as Siri.|