Want to know more about the end of clickbait? Read this!


26 Jan 2019495 Views

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Pin on PinterestShare on RedditEmail this to someone

Image: © Voyagerix/Stock.adobe.com

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Pin on PinterestShare on RedditEmail this to someone

UX consultant Gareth Dunlop explains why the digital industry should learn from the mistakes of clickbait and strive to offer more detail to its users.

In Christmas 2018, The BMJ published the results of an astonishing experiment set up to establish if the use of a parachute had an impact on the likelihood of death when participants jumped out of an aeroplane.

Despite a regular-sounding title – Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: Randomised controlled trial – and regular-sounding (if somewhat apparently obvious) objective – “to determine if using a parachute prevents death or major traumatic injury when jumping from an aircraft” – there was nothing regular about the result summary – “parachute use did not significantly reduce death or major injury (0pc for parachute vs 0pc for control)” – or the clarification – “this finding was consistent across multiple subgroups”.

Mercifully, the study’s conclusion offers some much-needed succour not just for parachute manufacturers but also for the laws of physics as we know them. “Parachute use did not reduce death or major traumatic injury when jumping from aircraft in the first randomised evaluation of this intervention. However, the trial was only able to enrol participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high-altitude jumps.”

The experiment was a justified protest by the scientific community at the consistently low quality with which the media reports scientific findings. It turns out that it’s not just the Daily Mail that makes a daily effort to categorise the world of inanimate objects into those that either cause or cure cancer (or sometimes both, depending on how many stories about Princess Diana or immigration are live that week). The media coverage of the important study on the impact of mobile phone use on the developmental health of children was consistently appallingly reported.

Once again, though, I would do well to look in the mirror on the way down from my high horse. Because the industry within which I make my living is unfortunately no stranger to the unhelpful ‘catch-all’ headline with no regard for the nuance and detail below the headline that is absolutely essential in making digital effective.

In a sense, UX agencies have an identical job to media outlets when it comes to reporting research. We need to understand the research, apply the research and explain the research in a non-technical way. Crucially, however, we have the same responsibility and duty to be rigorous enough in our understanding of the science that we communicate nuanced facts and not generalised fiction.

Here are a few false truisms I’ve heard trotted out down the years as universal principles or guidelines for digital activity:

  • Blog content helps with SEO
  • Interface design needs to be mobile-first
  • Site navigation needs to apply the three-click rule
  • Content is king
  • Users hate scrolling

The challenge is that these bland generalisms are much easier to say and sell than the truth behind them:

  • Fresh, relevant, thought-leading, well-connected, up-to-date blog content can help with search engine performance in some sectors
  • Interface design needs to embrace the customer’s context of use, so needs to be focused around the technology that most users use most often
  • Site navigation needs to ruthlessly prioritise the tasks that most users need to do most of the time and ruthlessly deprioritise tasks that few users use rarely
  • In some situations, the words used to describe a product or service are the most important influencing factors in a potential customer buying
  • I have never watched the author’s teenage daughter on her mobile phone

The digital industry owes it to its clients to speak to them with more honesty – and to impress upon them the need for nuance and detail – if it is to enjoy credibility in the boardrooms of its clients.

However, the digital industry should also learn from the mistakes of the past. If clients see us as credible, they are better informed, happier and engaged. They are also armed with the detailed information they need to make nuanced and strategically informed digital choices.

By Gareth Dunlop

Gareth Dunlop owns and runs Fathom, a user experience (UX) consultancy that helps ambitious organisations get the most from their digital products by viewing the world from the perspective of their customers. Specialist areas include UX strategy, usability testing, customer journey planning and accessibility. Clients include BBC, Bord Bia, Firmus Energy, Kingspan, AIB and Tesco Mobile.