Many brilliant minds in interactive have written and presented on the subject of responsive design workflow. There are numerous articles, books, and blog posts that address how a traditional “waterfall” process no longer works, that we should build mobile-first, and tools you can use to improve responsive workflow.
Much of what’s out there suggests there is a magic formula – a certain tool or a particular philosophy – that will result in a successful project. At Crux Collaborative, we have come to a different conclusion.
We believe that there is no perfect tool or philosophy when embarking on a responsive project. (Sorry.) Responsive design itself is merely a technique – it doesn’t automagically solve problems for users. There is only one thing that can ensure your project will be a triumph: a truly collaborative process.
How do you begin?
What are the deliverables? Which discipline kicks it off?
Getting started can seem pretty daunting at first. How do you begin to design an experience that must be so flexible?
Prior to responsive design, we’d plan for “x number of wireframes” and design “x number of page comps” to establish the core system. Clearly, this doesn’t work anymore. And no longer can a UX specialist – or any other team member – create concepts in a vacuum.
Instead, we tailor the approach for every project with a single goal at the outset of the project: get into the browser as early as possible. Inspired by Ben Callahan, we believe that ultimately the only “deliverable” that really matters is the final prototype/site.
That does not mean we’ve abandoned all our old ways of getting work done. We still use various tools from our toolbox like Photoshop, UX Pin, and Axure along the way – but we limit the deliverables we produce using them. The tools that were often the foundation and primary source of deliverables now merely help us work toward the point that we have something to build and refine in the browser.
Involving Everyone
Getting Clients on Board
Clients understandably may be skeptical about receiving only one “deliverable.” After all, documents and decks are what they’re used to buying and distributing to their internal stakeholders. It may seem confusing and risky to them at first, they may misunderstand and think you are proposing to “skip” those steps.
Three aspects about our culture have helped us convince our clients of this approach.
Mutual Trust. As a team of consultants, we have always made specific recommendations rather than providing our clients with several choices. Our (unofficial) motto is: “amateurs provide options, experts provide recommendations”. Our clients trust our expertise.
A history of collaboration. Prior to our responsive work, we already collaborated closely with our clients and worked together to define solutions, rather than creating solutions on our own.
Transparency. We don’t “hide” the work in progress from our clients, they see it, and participate in creating it, at each step of the way. So in the case of responsive and one “deliverable”- waiting a bit longer for a “deliverable” doesn’t equate to waiting to hear or see what’s happening.
We cannot emphasize this enough: collaboration is the secret ingredient.
Clients who are actively engaged in creating solutions will understand and believe in the process so much more –and persuade other stakeholders of the value. Clients who collaborate have more ownership, pride, and expertise in the solutions you create together.
One size does not fit all. The process you use depends on the team you have.
We see each project as an opportunity to evolve. Over the years, we have amassed a veritable library of methods to apply to projects. There are basic best practices up front, but we believe it is important to adapt as you go based on discoveries along the way. The milestones, methods and tools should themselves be born of a collaborative process – and should match the team personalities, strengths and skillsets.
For example: For some project teams, a daily stand up works and for other teams it can be a colossal waste of precious morning time.
Another example: Identify how team members and clients like to receive and process information. If your team is comfortable with ambiguity and problem solving in a group, go for it. If this type of environment causes some team members to get tense and shut down, have time for individual problem solving prior to meeting as a group. A group sketching session is not always the best approach.
We think of this flexibility as a kind of “remix culture” – mixing the best methods we know to fit the people using them.
While your team thinks through the details of onboarding new users to your system, don’t forget about the times throughout your process where some interstitial onboarding can be critical. Don’t leave your users stranded as you introduce new complex concepts.
Budget constraints are real, and teams are being asked to do more with less all the time. But, failing to meet certain expectations can result in disappointed customers, regulatory or legal hassles, competitor disruption, and loss of business.
Do you have a mechanism in place to communicate to your customers and users if your site or system experiences a critical failure? If not, there’s no time like the present to identify a strategy that will inform your users of the problem and communicate key details about the outage.