I’m not sure why I’ve been picking up on “user experience” issues in the food and food service industries recently — I guess I love food and therefore get easily frustrated when these issues hamper my enjoyment of the cuisine I enjoy consuming so much.

Case in point: I was out to dinner the other night and I ordered a rack of lamb. The server informed me that the chef recommends the lamb medium rare, which worked out well as I planned to order it that way anyhow. As such, I expected the lamb to be cooked to a solid pink throughout. When it arrived, however, I was disappointed to find the lamb dark red in the center, barely cooked at all.

Aside from the general annoyance that comes from sending food back when the other person at the table has their entree, I became even more frustrated after discussing the situation with a passing waiter. While apologizing, he told me that “the chef’s medium rare is generally pretty rare“. A kitchen error (especially at an expensive “fine dining” restaurant like the one we were at) is troubling enough, but this piece of information was even more agitating. If the chef considers medium rare to be rarer than what is considered medium rare by the general public, why didn’t the waitress tell me that when I ordered the food?

As only a dorky UX professional would, I got to thinking about Jared Spool’s current knowledge vs. target knowledge theory. My current knowledge at the time was the common definition of medium rare. (This may be somewhat debatable, but I’ll stand by my opinion if epicurious agrees.) The target knowledge, in this situation, is the chef’s version of meduim rare. With no other explanation on the menu or from the waitress, as a customer I could only assume that this restaurant’s medium rare is the same as the common opinion. And because I assumed that my current knowledge was enough, I had a terrible experience.

Interestingly, the only restaurant (in my experience) that consistently does this well is Outback Steakhouse (which hardly qualifies as fine dining). At Outback, when a steak is ordered, the server always confirms the temperature ordered for clarification. For example, a customer ordering medium rare will be told something to the effect of: “that will be slightly red in the middle with a little pink” (Outback’s temperatures lean to the rarer side). This effectively fills the gap between current knowledge and target knowledge!

Perhaps in the future, I’ll take more time to clarify with the server to ensure that what I consider medium rare is consistent with the chef’s perception. Wouldn’t it be easier, however, if we all just used the same terminology for the same thing?

Today CBS and NBC announced deals to offer replays of prime-time programs for 99 cents per episode. This is the big one — the announcement that will change the TV landscape forever.

TiVo, DVR and OnDemand have been around for a while now, but this, along with ABC’s recent deal with iPod Video, finally brings network TV into the new world. I pine for the days when TV is completely on demand and schedules disappear. Perhaps this will never happen completely, but today’s announcement was a big first step.

World Usability Day Philadelphia was a great success — over 100 people battled through a SEPTA strike and a several block power outage (including trains into 30th st. station and traffic lights in the area) to attend a great keynote speech by Tom Tullis of Fidelity and to participate in site reviews, usability tests and more.

Interestingly, Tullis’ speech was titled “Usability and the Evolution of Technology, or You Shouldn’t Have to Read a User Manual to Ride an Elevator!” and he spent a good few minutes at the beginning of the presentation discussing these so-called “destination elevators” which I described in a recent post about the Marriott Marquis in NYC.

Personally, I worked at the “5-minute website reviews” table, taking a few minutes to review and suggest site improvements for anyone who stopped by. The table was consistently busy, as I was talking to someone pretty much the entire time.

Overall, this was a fun event, and a good chance to meet people who work in the UX industry. I look forward to next year!

I was watching ESPN’s NFL Countdown this morning and they ran a graphic across the bottom of the screen. It read:

Now on ESPN.com:
Why Packers aren’t focused on their record
Search: RECORD

Although I wasn’t all that interested in what the Packers think of their record, I already had the site up on my laptop, so I entered the search term. On the first page of search results, there were no results that related to the Green Bay Packers.

How does something like this happen? How does a major network like ESPN run a graphic on one of their most popular shows without confirming that what they tell customers to do will yield the desired result?

One of the most frustrating experiences for me as a customer is when the channels of a multi-channel organization do not communicate with each other. Years ago, I purchased a Sears product online for in-store pickup, and the resulting horrible experience I had (because the channels were not communicating) has kept me away from Sears.com or stores ever since. ESPN runs this type of graphic all the time, but the two times I’ve actually tried it, I haven’t been able to find the article they were promoting. I won’t do it again.

As the holiday season approaches, most people I know will either send or receive at least one evite. So, with that in mind, I remind you to check out my two part series of the usability of evite. enjoy!