April 13, 2022

Product Designers vs. Engineers

Why you need both product design and product engineering for your project.

We are product designers. A question we frequently hear from new clients is just wherein the difference between our job and that of product engineers lies - and why they need both for successful product development. This seems to be unclear especially for startups and companies that have not developed a new product in a while, and are thus less familiar with the process.
Why does it take both design and engineering for product development? Where do the respective competences and responsibilities lie? How do they work together for their clients to create product solutions that work and delight?

A large part of our expertise as product designers lies in designing technologically advanced products. Our job is to make these products usable, understandable and desirable. We focus on users to define product features and form: establishing workflows for intuitive product use, designing three-dimensional shape, physical interaction elements and digital interfaces; we adjust look & feel for brand and market. We do not develop the underlying technologies, nor do we develop technical engineering for these products.

"Our job is to make these products usable, understandable and desirable."

Basically, we optimize products to make humans happy: customers, users – and our clients’ sales department! Usability, look, shape, user experience, and a fitting presentation on the market serve this purpose and are thus clearly on the designer’s side.

Product engineers, on the other hand, make sure that all those little demons hiding within physical matter (or software code) stay happy. Thus, issues related purely to the technical field are clearly on the engineer’s side: when it comes to structural integrity, mechanical/electronic components, and production preparation, the little demons within need to stay happy, or they will sabotage the product, so to speak.

The next post of this series will deal with the notable overlap between these two disciplines: to develop successful products, product designers develop creative solutions with technical aspects in mind, while engineers work on the technical basis for these creative solutions. Coming soon in the Antimatter Lab!

See what Antimatter can do for you and contact us to talk about your project!
Read more thoughts on product design and UX/UI design in our lab section!


About the author: Heinrich Lentz is the founder of Antimatter, a physical / digital product design agency in Vienna/Austria, and functions as its design director. Previously he has been working in product and ux/ui design for agencies in Austria and Spain and lecturing at IED Barcelona.

Photo by Gavin Allanwood on Unsplash

January 20, 2021

User Testing – 4: Conclusions

Drawing Your Own Conclusions - an Entrepreneurial Task

This is the final post of a series of four. You can find the previous posts here.

As a product development team, we hold responsibility for our innovation project, and we have (informed!) assumptions to make and decisions to take, right from the start. When we bring in users to test prototypes, user selection and a well-designed test-setup is imperative. Letting the user's actions speak for themselves, taking objective metrics into account, listening to expert opinion.

"user testing done right gives the feedback needed to develop disruptive innovation assertively."

Finally, interpreting what we see. Resorting to generic user testing setups may permit the team to unload some responsibility, but only user testing done right gives the type of feedback needed to develop disruptive innovation assertively.

As product designers, when working with a client's product development team, we often become the first to identify, observe and listen to users in their actual environment; the first testers, and the first to urge our clients to have prototypes tested by real users and to review with experts. We're all for user testing - and we insist on doing it right:

  • Identify, observe and listen to your users: from the outset
  • Take decisions to innovate: based on insight
  • Get expert reviews: check with specialists who get the bigger picture
  • check usability of specific routes and touchpoints: by quantifiable A/B user testing
  • interpret & draw conclusions to iterate and sculpt a working product

See what Antimatter can do for you and contact us to talk about your project!
Read more thoughts on product design and UX/UI design in our lab section!


About the author: Heinrich Lentz is the founder of Antimatter, a physical / digital product design agency in Vienna/Austria, and functions as its design director. Previously he has been working in product and ux/ui design for agencies in Austria and Spain and lecturing at IED Barcelona.

This 4-part series was originally published by Heinrich Lentz as a single article on LinkedIn in October 2018.

December 17, 2020

User Testing – 3: Quantity or Quality?

Quantitative Testing vs. Expert Reviews

This is the third post of a series of four. You can find the previous posts here.

While many see user testing as a risk-minimizing technique, there is just as much risk involved in testing without a good setup. You might get feedback that seems solid, but is actually merely a result of a faulty test setup, of asking the wrong questions. We shouldn't be asking too many questions to begin with, but rather observe our testers using the product and strive for objective, quantifiable metrics. Usability of specific routes through an UI is quantifiable by measuring effectiveness and efficiency through A/B testing. This works well for selecting alternatives, modifications and iterations.

"strive for objective, quantifiable metrics."

Keep in mind that the data says what the data says, and nothing else. Also, be aware of the limitations of a test setup - for example, while A/B testing for conversion, we can't measure all that well how brand values are being perceived. The weighing of findings will always remain up to the team.

"disruptive, structural decisions require a bigger picture."

Major, disruptive, structural decisions, in any case, require a bigger picture and would simply overwhelm our standard tester and test setup - and typically it is these decisions that present themselves first when developing a disruptive product. Prototypes at this stage don't provide full functionality - be it paper prototypes, clickdummies, physical mock-ups or partially programmed versions. Quantitative metrics alone just won't suffice, and we'll often need test users with previous knowledge. Typically, some sort of informed but subjective opinion will be the only result possible. In other words - specialists providing an expert review that goes beyond usability metrics for webshop conversions and the like.

These experts rely on us to provide a test setup with sufficient information for them to reach a qualified opinion. And again it will have to be the development team to decide what to make of the feedback received - no one can take this responsibility off their shoulders.

The sample defines the result

Without meaningful metrics, there is no way of obtaining reliable test results - unless you are after hollow numbers for responsibility outsourcing, which I assume you're not.

The same applies to expert reviews: however qualified the feedback, it will be biased in one way or another. The important part here is to a) select the testers so you can actually learn from them about your product and b) to strive for a representative cross-section of your market. As far as the bigger picture is concerned, not all veteran users will be able to provide insights about a disruptive product.

"some might prefer what they know - simply because they are used to it"

Henry Ford famously stated, "If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have asked for a faster horse". Now imagine how carriage-owners would have reacted to being offered to test-drive a Model T. Some would have rejected the very idea of a horseless carriage, while others might have readily taken part: assessing the potential, challenges and shortcomings of the innovation from their vantage point. While insight may be earned from both groups, we should be careful to find a balance when choosing testers. Familiar with previous product generations, some might prefer what they know over what strives to innovate - simply because they are used to it. Their insight is valuable, but possibly limited.

Another factor to take into account is including users representing all involved personas: for a sports product, this could be an athlete, trainer, and reseller - whose complementary expert opinions will provide a bigger picture than could be obtained when focusing exclusively on the principal user. Setup and sample influence test results - and again, interpretation is up to the team.

See the final post of this series for conclusions on how to structure user testing for your product, and how to integrate it into your product development here.

See what Antimatter can do for you and contact us to talk about your project!


About the author: Heinrich Lentz is the founder of Antimatter, a physical / digital product design agency in Vienna/Austria, and functions as its design director. Previously he has been working in product and ux/ui design for agencies in Austria and Spain and lecturing at IED Barcelona.

This 4-part series was originally published by Heinrich Lentz as a single article on LinkedIn in October 2018. It has been adapted to fit the new format.

November 19, 2020

Technology vs. Customer Benefit

Closing the Gap between Technology and Customer Benefit

Technologically innovative companies - especially in the fields of IoT, smart products and Industry 4.0 - often face this challenge: how to close the gap between technological opportunity and a deliverable product/service system customers are willing to pay for?

Established industry leaders updating their products and processes, startups with promising new solutions, technology companies expanding their expertise and services or establishing platform systems: tackling the digital dimension and converting it into actual business cases is no easy task.

Typically, there is no lack of innovation - it is getting innovations out of a scientific domain that is challenging to technology-led businesses, bringing them back into the reality of a customer or user. After all, this is where the success of a product, service, or ecosystem is decided.

"To a user, a product is only as desirable as the benefits it delivers."

To a user, a product/service is only as interesting as he is able to grasp, and only as desirable as the benefits it delivers or the experiences it enables. A user-centric approach right from the outset of product development ensures innovation is channeled towards actual customer benefit and converted into products, services and ecosystems clients and consumers truly understand, appreciate, and value.

Thus, when working to convert technological innovation into user-focused business models, we go through the following steps with our clients in the development process:

  • identifying users/customers and their underlying needs early on through user research & interviews
  • identifying tangible user benefits: how can the product/service bring users closer to fulfilling their needs
  • designing the product/service around these benefits and associated experiences
  • employing user testing strategically, looping feedback back into development
  • addressing customer benefits and experience directly in all communication

Instead of imposing technology on customers, such an approach connects with users through products and digital services - enabling successful business cases for smart products and digital services.

See what we can do for you or contact us to talk about your project!


About the author: Heinrich Lentz is the founder of Antimatter, a physical / digital product design agency in Vienna/Austria, and functions as its design director. Previously, he has been working in product and ux/ui design for agencies in Austria and Spain and lecturing at IED Barcelona. The design project for TTTech's Nerve device, pictured above, was developed by Peschkedesign.

This article was originally published by Heinrich Lentz on LinkedIn in September 2018.

October 20, 2020

User Testing – 2: Know your users!

User groups are constantly evolving.

This is the second post of a series of four. See the introductory post here!

Most companies are astutely aware of their products’ core user groups. But sometimes, these user groups shift over time – and development or marketing teams may become disconnected from customer realities they thought they knew well. This creates advantage for those companies who first acknowledge their customers are evolving, too: many successful business models are rooted in tapping into previously overlooked target demographics and emerging trends.

For example, in the industrial field, smart digitalization may enable less specialized users to complete tasks previously requiring specialists. At the same time, these specialists can now centrally control productivity – if they are given the tools and interfaces to effectively do so. This creates new business cases for those who understand these emerging needs and opportunities.

"Designing for your users’ evolving needs may evolve your business model, too."

Knowing your users well is essential - how they interact, why they do what they do, what they strive to achieve, what is expected of them. By digging a little deeper into customers’ day to day reality, observing and identifying emerging usage patterns and roles, and by listening to what the users themselves have to say – you may get a much more complete picture of what a product could do for them. This can go much further than developing for the users you already know and having them test A and B versions of a product they already know, too.

It lets you understand their evolving reality and anticipate future developments, and enables you to draw your own conclusions and hypothesis before you start with new product development. Thus, designing for your users’ evolving needs may evolve your business model, too.

When it comes to evaluating new product development, paying close attention to user groups lets you test your product much more effectively – read more about this in the next posts:

  1. Quantity or Quality? User testing vs. Expert Reviews.
  2. Conclusions - an Entrepreneurial Task.

See what Antimatter can do for you and contact us to talk about your project!


About the author: Heinrich Lentz is the founder of Antimatter, a physical / digital product design agency in Vienna/Austria, and functions as its design director. Previously he has been working in product and ux/ui design for agencies in Austria and Spain and lecturing at IED Barcelona.

This 4-part series was originally published by Heinrich Lentz as a single article on LinkedIn in October 2018. It has been adapted to fit the new format.

September 23, 2020

User Testing – 1: An Introduction

User testing for disruptive products

User testing is an incredibly valuable tool to assess and insure solid UX, and a fundamentally necessary step in any product development process - especially so for digital products like apps, interfaces or HMIs. When done correctly, it can bring about innovations that feel radically new and naturally intuitive at once - the type that surprises and thrills users, and distinguishes products that disrupt industries.

But when used improperly, it carries the risk of transferring responsibility from the product development team to the anonymous user. Testing is essential, but responsibility cannot be outsourced. However armed with user feedback, it will always have to be the development team to sculpt a working product innovation.

How to user-test right?

Most user testings approaches in UX/UI design rely on "webshop science": proven processes to test user onboarding, conversions, etc. These crucial interactions and basic metrics are often carried out through A/B test setups. But these factors may fall short of adequately representing the wide range of touchpoints a user has with more interactive and more sophisticated products.

Smart devices linked to an app, HMIs or medical applications have a very different interaction pattern from, say, an online shop. Hence, many commonplace testing truths prove insufficient at this level.

"User testing shouldn't be the first time the development team gets a reality check."

When treated as a one-size-fits-all solution - that UX and design decisions can supposedly be relegated to - user testing may even become an excuse for not taking strong, disruptive entrepreneurial decisions. Also, testing shouldn't be the first time the development team gets a user-side reality check. This should happen way before the first prototypes - actually, before development even starts.
Read more about user testing in these upcoming posts:

  1. Know your users! User groups are constantly evolving.
  2. Quantity or Quality? User testing vs. Expert Reviews.
  3. Conclusions - an Entrepreneurial Task.

See what Antimatter can do for you and contact us to talk about your project!


About the author: Heinrich Lentz is the founder of Antimatter, a physical / digital product design agency in Vienna/Austria, and functions as its design director. Previously he has been working in product and ux/ui design for agencies in Austria and Spain and lecturing at IED Barcelona.

This 4-part series was originally published by Heinrich Lentz as a single article on LinkedIn in October 2018.

Need some Antimatter?
Let's talk about your project.

Antimatter Product Design
Weyringergasse 34/3
1040 Vienna - Austria

office@antimatter.eu
t +43 (1) 997 80 20

See more projects on Behance!

Connect with us!