Why we should keep learning from the physical world instead of the other way around.

Imagine the following scenario:

For several years now, I have lived in my current flat. Across the street, perfectly spotted, a bakery, supporting my laziness and letting me notice changes (since I’m regularly there). So it brought to my attention that their service not only sucks (which isn’t the point), they also established a real-life pop-up Q&A.

What this means?

As soon as you enter the bakery, they ask you what you want, which is the known behaviour. Then — when you’re done with your order — they still ask you if you’d like to add a drink. So you have to reanswer with YES/NO or „What can you offer me?” .

I know it’s a psychological trick — and most of the time it works. It works well because people tend to engage with questions and the more often you ask the higher is the probability you get something sold, gather information or whatever your goal is.

But we are in the real world, we can adjust our behaviour to situations and people. That’s why I think that a standardized question shouldn’t be asked when you can see that your customer already holds a coffee mug in his hands. You can take the chance and at least ask something that might matter to your customer. It’s not the digital world, it’s not a programmed and fixed process, there is the possibility to create a real human interaction instead of stupidly following patterns.

That’s why I recently asked myself: “When did the real, the physical world become a reflection of the digital?”. Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Shouldn’t we create new products and services based on the real world? On the basis of human, natural interactions?

We are used to orienting ourselves in the physical world because we are a part of it, so we adapt and transform it into a digital product but not the other way around. The Notes App from Apple was created with the idea to look like an actual notepad. So people could relate to something they already knew. They could ease into the digital product because it aligned with something they already knew as a physical object. The difference and real advantage (for the user!!!) was that it was integrated into their phone or computer and easier to access from thereon.

So there was no big transition, bumpy start, or unusual behaviour, just an easy way of getting used to something new combined with known objects and behaviors.

bumps and bruises

We design digital products with bumps and bruises and accept the fact that the outcome is not physical. So bugs are more likely forgiven in the digital world. Which makes sense, because we created a parallel world which isn’t real and mistakes are human. But we insist that we want to be as digital as possible and keep growing. Hence we should keep checking the following list:

understand human interaction
(re-)create human interaction
build trust & being real

Understand human interaction

It’s easier to implement something natural into a human interaction instead of implementing something artificial which seems forced.

That is why you wouldn’t let a customer walk into a blind alley in your retail store. There would already be a sign before he’d even enter the hallway, so he would never see empty shelves or even a „Sorry you took the wrong turn” -sign. The blind alley would be hidden and not even approachable. You wouldn’t see that there is more space in the back which used to be filled with clothes.

So when we wouldn’t send somebody into a dead end like a empty room in a retail store, why do we create error pages? I know why you don’t have to tell me. But can’t we be smarter and think a bit further? Implement a forwarding page or redirection page with a short notification on the redirected page, so you won’t click into a blind alley aka. error page.

Many organizations work on it already, but shouldn’t it be a standard?

(Re-)create human interaction

Restaurants might be one of the most beautiful physical experiences there are. You can never really tell if the next visit is going to be enjoyable or not. But at least you always have something to tell.

And something almost every restaurant can do is to interact directly with its customer. If something in the meal has to be changed or rechecked there is an immediate reaction to it. You learn if your meal can be without nuts or if you shouldn’t eat it, because it’s too spicy. You receive personalized service and feel cared for.

The digital pendant might be Lieferando, Wolt or whatever their names are. They have a really good service when it comes to delivery. They try to be as fast as possible and their drivers are friendly, but they’re not service staff from the restaurant. There is no way to have a conversation about the food or allergies. They try to cover as many questions as possible and try to anticipate interactions on the delivery website, but it’s only a a programmed and fixed process.

Who tells the customer that the meal is spicy but not that spicy? How can you reach the restaurant, if you forgot something to add to your notes (apparently you can call the restaurant, but most of the time it’s not true, it’s almost impossible to reach somebody).

How can a human interaction be implemented in extended customer journeys which allow sick, lazy or busy people to enjoy their meal from home and get the same service as their fellows sitting in the restaurant?

Build trust & being real

Another example is the small boutique I love to go to. It just showed me what an impact it can have if you just put a very little extra effort into the experience.

I recently figured out that they have resizeable FFP2 masks which was my corona-discovery of the last 3 months. So I got them there from now on. But one day, they ran out of stock and the delivery wasn’t as fast as expected. So they offered to send me a short text message if they’re back in stock instead of telling me to sign up for a newsletter or any other annoying spam filling information.

So I was asking myself, why do we always have to accept that a digital experience can reach an annoying point instead of surprising me nicely? Do I have to subscribe to a newsletter to get all the newest information or is there a less disturbing way? Can I just get a one time experience that allows me to stay updated, like an information letter but just in a digital way? Or decide on my own how often the news reaches me, instead of a huge amount of unwanted newsletters filling my mailbox, which I delete anyway because I just can’t keep up with it.

Conclusion

Have we arrived at the point where we are more used to the digital world than the physical? And does this mean that we now have to learn from it?

Or should we rather ask ourselves: How can the digital world learn from the physical?

I claim there is never a time when we should prioritize the digital world over the physical, even though I’m a UX Designer creating digital products. We may have created the digital world, but we don’t live in it. We can escape the bright screens, shut down the phone, the computer, or just the app if we cannot stand it anymore. But the real, physical world is always there. There is no turning off, we have to deal with unpleasant situations and accept changes as they come. We have to react and grow with it to understand what might come next.

So I claim to say that we should always learn from the real-life experience, especially if we want to expand a real-life user experience, like the bakery in front of my house should have asked itself „What are the customer’s needs? How can we meet them?” instead of imposing a new ‘feature’ that just sucks.

So maybe we try a little less to be taller, faster and create things further and invest a bit more of our energy in doing it more precisely and accurately. So we can reach more people and help them getting used to innovations.

That means we always have to keep looking around us, understanding different cultures and people’s behaviour before something new will be implemented in the digital or physical world and asking ourselves:

How does the physical world work?
What does the customer need?
How does it integrate smoothly?

The door shows that both worlds can exist without disturbing human nature.

Doors can be opened via sensors without even touching a knob. Especially nowadays, it is very helpful. All because the door’s opening is supported by a digital layer while the known behavior (walking through a hole in the wall) gets not disturbed.

So, when the physical world can create an environment supported by digital elements, why can’t the digital world do it?

Let’s try to create a digital transformation supported by the physical world, not the other way around.

UX in (digital) space