What people expect from technology

A first visit may last only long enough to check an offer. The screen should help someone understand what is available and what they will need when they return.

For example, a salesperson may have time to select a product but need an invoice from their manager before submitting. Explain that requirement before they begin, and make a useful stopping point available where the program permits it.

The program should do more of the remembering. If someone has already chosen a product, supplied their details, or started a submission, that effort should have a useful life beyond the current screen.

This takes judgment. Saving work needs to respect access and retention requirements. Shared devices need different treatment from a personal phone. Familiarity should make a task easier while keeping the right boundaries around the information involved.

Continuity can be as simple as showing a returning participant what is waiting for them and what remains to be done. An unfinished submission is a different situation from a new one. Recognizing that difference tells the person that the service has kept up with them.

There are two clocks in a submission: the time it takes to acknowledge an action and the time it takes to reach a decision. A person can receive a clear response immediately while the underlying review takes the time it requires.

A message that confirms receipt, identifies the item, and explains the next step gives someone a reason to move on with their day. If more information is needed later, the request should connect to that same submission and make the correction clear. A person should be able to understand the difference between received, under review, and approved.

Visible status, familiar conventions, and useful error recovery are established usability principles. Our application to incentives is straightforward: make the program’s response as understandable as its request. Participants should be able to tell whether they are waiting on the program or the program is waiting on them.

A short message may suit someone reporting a straightforward activity. A web page may be better for comparing offers or checking several submissions. An existing system connection may save a team from entering the same information twice. Each can be a good choice when it fits the work and the organization’s requirements.

The same test applies to automation and AI. Identify the work it would improve, the information it would use, and the decisions that need oversight. A sophisticated program can use automation selectively, or rely on familiar forms and a clear review process. The participant experiences the result of those choices.

Adding another way to participate also adds decisions to the experience. Someone should know which route makes sense for their task and whether their activity will appear in the same record. Choice is useful when it makes taking part easier to understand.

A brand can be thoughtful about its products and just as thoughtful about how it asks people to support them. The language of a correction, the handling of a question, and the visibility of a reward are all moments in that relationship.

A correction can say exactly what is missing and how to provide it. A returning seller can recognize the claim they started. These small interactions make the experience feel considered, including when a decision takes time.