5 ms·

> This is where you stop looking at your startup as a self-masturbatory piece of UX genius and start looking at it as a business. What crap. User experience an

> This is where you stop looking at your startup as a self-masturbatory piece of UX genius and start looking at it as a business. What crap. User experience and business aren't mutually exclusive. You have a choice: make money as a result of making your users happy or make money at the expense of their happiness. It's as simple as that. As your decisions compound on one side of that balance or the other, the shape of your brand begins to emerge. My preference, continually, is to work with companies who optimize their business on the side of making me happy. They are playing a long term game that I respect, and which respects me. On the other side, that's the kind of user experience I want to create myself. It's a bit like arguing that you can be a successful organism by being an asshole. Its definitely true that you can. But I posit you can be a successful organism by being good to people, and that the upshot is that it's a lot more fun. Edit: And, of course, this is an exhausting trope, but do I need to mention that one of the largest companies in America makes great user experience the acid test for their business decisions?

revorad 16y ago
What crap. "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."" http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html </meta>
al_james 16y ago
It depends what makes you happy. I get happy when I get a great deal more than when its a nice shiny UI. Of course, both a great deal and a great UI is best, but if I had to choose one, I know which it would be.
- danilocampos 16y ago
  Shiny is an aesthetic description. The importance of this discussion goes much deeper — simplicity versus complexity, and who benefits from each. Upsells are an obstacle to completing your purchase. They're annoying. They are added compexity that has a nominal chance of benefiting the user. In contrast, they are guaranteed to benefit the company, since as a numbers game, you'll end up pitching enough upsells to convert n additional sales. When considering the impact of adding complexity, imagine a toilet. Or, rather, your access to a toilet. Some toilets are a door knob away. Others require you to hunt down a coin and drop it into a slot before providing access. Which toilet are you more proud to have in your business?
  - al_james 16y ago
    Your assertion that all upsells have a 'nominal chance of benefiting the user' is wrong. Some users love upsells if they are the right deal.
    - danilocampos 16y ago
      You're talking to a former salesman here — the art of the virtuous upsell is a delicate bit of work that takes time to practice. For humans. Very few ecommerce companies give a damn about doing the algorithmic legwork necessary to upsell "the right deal." Even Amazon, the crem de la crem in ecommerce IT magic, doesn't often nail it for me. They get away with it, though, by being respectful to me. No interstitial horseshit, just a respectful suggestion that doesn't ever detract from my main activity — buying the things I am certain I want. You can make money by surprising your users — Google made billions doing this with AdWords. It works for them by being good on a pretty solid basis and never being in the way when it isn't.
    - alextgordon 16y ago
      This is really quite an easy problem to solve. Run the upsell. If only a small percentage of users go for it, throw it away, since it's probably doing more harm than good. I no longer use godaddy, partly because I got tired of wading through their ridiculous number of upsells. There's got to be a balance.
  - jasonlotito 16y ago
    > When considering the impact of adding complexity, imagine a toilet. A bidet and a toilet with toilet paper. I'd find a bidet confusing and awkward. Upsells are useful. You make the assumption they only serve the company. This is wrong. Take for example the last upsale I purchased. I bought a Kindle. Amazon upsold a case for the Kindle before the checkout. Apple pushes upsales all the time as well. I challenge anyone to go by a Mac in an Apple store, and try to buy it without having to mention to have the sales person discuss MobileMe, AppleCare, or OneOnOne. You make the assumption that upsales are annoying and are obstacles. That's not true. The design of upsales can be made an obstacle or annoying, but then, I could argue the same about anything. Heck, I could take a blank page and turn it into an obstacle.
jasonlotito 16y ago
As an Apple user, I'd like to know what company makes UX the acid test for their business decisions over profit?
astine 16y ago
"User experience and business aren't mutually exclusive." They are not necessarily always aligned either and you may have to choose at one point. UX is very subjective and taking a dogmatic approach to it and how it affects your business isn't a very good idea.
- danilocampos 16y ago
  > UX is very subjective I can't say I agree with this. Maybe you're thinking of UI, which I would agree can be very subjective. Great UX, on the other hand, in the most simple possible terms, is the application of the golden rule to any interactive system: software, gadget, subway system, what have you. "If I had to use this thing, how would I want it to work?" As a result, it's a pretty simple thing to test: how does this implementation enhance or detract from the user's ability to do what they're trying to do? The degree of impact may be subjective, but I think it's pretty easy to tell when something is user hostile or user friendly.
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    The only way that UX can be globally optimal is if all users share the same goals, the same skills and understanding, the same capabilities (browser caps, etc.). In the real world, where people have at least slightly different goals, are more or less sophisticated, and sometimes use IE6, compromises -- sometimes deep ones -- must be made. For example, on our ecommerce site, we've got at least two very different user personas. One is what you might think is typical -- an end-user who browses, trying to figure out what to buy. The other is a purchasing manager, simply working his way down a purchase order. In many parts of the process these two people have very different needs. Obviously we want to try to cater to both of them, but multiplying the options in itself has effect on the UX.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    >how does this implementation enhance or detract from the user's ability to do what they're trying to do? If you're capitalistic about things though sometimes you want to do what will hinder your user's ability to fulfill their goal. For example at the supermarket - I want to get milk and get away quick but the supermarket wants me to go through the whole store and be confronted with offers and the smell of the instore bakery, etc.. My experience is frustrated on purpose to benefit the business financially. Similarly with "checkout" offers on a sales website. One particular printer makes you manually leaf through about 12 pages of offers after you've confirmed your purchase - it's a poorer UX (IMO) but will benefit the business. Others will argue, this last case say, is an improved UX as I get the chance to bag offers I perhaps hadn't noticed. Thus it's subjective.
roadnottaken 16y ago
Isn't Google a huge, obvious exception to his thesis? To be fair, it's not an e-commerce site, but it preserves user experience at the expense of "leaving zillions of dollars on the table" in "lost revenue" by not plastering the site with ads. I think in light of Google a big part of his argument is preposterous.
- mikeklaas 16y ago
  That is only true if more obtrusive ads were necessarily the more revenue-maximizing. Even the article admits that the obtrusiveness from up-selling can be counter-productive and be revenue-harmful. I believe that when Google changed the ad click area to just the title/link rather than the whole div, the total # of clicks was lowered (fewer misclicks), but revenue was not affected since the value of each click was higher.
gonk 16y ago
Making money and having happy customers are not two mutually exclusive ideals. Its quite satisfying to have both conditions occur in business, and quite possible no matter what Mr. Marx has to say about it. If you do something for someone that they are willing to pay you for, then congratulations: that is the nature of productive success in business.

revorad 16y ago

What crap. "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."" http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html </meta>

al_james 16y ago

It depends what makes you happy. I get happy when I get a great deal more than when its a nice shiny UI. Of course, both a great deal and a great UI is best, but if I had to choose one, I know which it would be.

danilocampos 16y ago
Shiny is an aesthetic description. The importance of this discussion goes much deeper — simplicity versus complexity, and who benefits from each. Upsells are an obstacle to completing your purchase. They're annoying. They are added compexity that has a nominal chance of benefiting the user. In contrast, they are guaranteed to benefit the company, since as a numbers game, you'll end up pitching enough upsells to convert n additional sales. When considering the impact of adding complexity, imagine a toilet. Or, rather, your access to a toilet. Some toilets are a door knob away. Others require you to hunt down a coin and drop it into a slot before providing access. Which toilet are you more proud to have in your business?
- al_james 16y ago
  Your assertion that all upsells have a 'nominal chance of benefiting the user' is wrong. Some users love upsells if they are the right deal.
  - danilocampos 16y ago
    You're talking to a former salesman here — the art of the virtuous upsell is a delicate bit of work that takes time to practice. For humans. Very few ecommerce companies give a damn about doing the algorithmic legwork necessary to upsell "the right deal." Even Amazon, the crem de la crem in ecommerce IT magic, doesn't often nail it for me. They get away with it, though, by being respectful to me. No interstitial horseshit, just a respectful suggestion that doesn't ever detract from my main activity — buying the things I am certain I want. You can make money by surprising your users — Google made billions doing this with AdWords. It works for them by being good on a pretty solid basis and never being in the way when it isn't.
  - alextgordon 16y ago
    This is really quite an easy problem to solve. Run the upsell. If only a small percentage of users go for it, throw it away, since it's probably doing more harm than good. I no longer use godaddy, partly because I got tired of wading through their ridiculous number of upsells. There's got to be a balance.
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  > When considering the impact of adding complexity, imagine a toilet. A bidet and a toilet with toilet paper. I'd find a bidet confusing and awkward. Upsells are useful. You make the assumption they only serve the company. This is wrong. Take for example the last upsale I purchased. I bought a Kindle. Amazon upsold a case for the Kindle before the checkout. Apple pushes upsales all the time as well. I challenge anyone to go by a Mac in an Apple store, and try to buy it without having to mention to have the sales person discuss MobileMe, AppleCare, or OneOnOne. You make the assumption that upsales are annoying and are obstacles. That's not true. The design of upsales can be made an obstacle or annoying, but then, I could argue the same about anything. Heck, I could take a blank page and turn it into an obstacle.

jasonlotito 16y ago

As an Apple user, I'd like to know what company makes UX the acid test for their business decisions over profit?

astine 16y ago

"User experience and business aren't mutually exclusive." They are not necessarily always aligned either and you may have to choose at one point. UX is very subjective and taking a dogmatic approach to it and how it affects your business isn't a very good idea.

danilocampos 16y ago
> UX is very subjective I can't say I agree with this. Maybe you're thinking of UI, which I would agree can be very subjective. Great UX, on the other hand, in the most simple possible terms, is the application of the golden rule to any interactive system: software, gadget, subway system, what have you. "If I had to use this thing, how would I want it to work?" As a result, it's a pretty simple thing to test: how does this implementation enhance or detract from the user's ability to do what they're trying to do? The degree of impact may be subjective, but I think it's pretty easy to tell when something is user hostile or user friendly.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  The only way that UX can be globally optimal is if all users share the same goals, the same skills and understanding, the same capabilities (browser caps, etc.). In the real world, where people have at least slightly different goals, are more or less sophisticated, and sometimes use IE6, compromises -- sometimes deep ones -- must be made. For example, on our ecommerce site, we've got at least two very different user personas. One is what you might think is typical -- an end-user who browses, trying to figure out what to buy. The other is a purchasing manager, simply working his way down a purchase order. In many parts of the process these two people have very different needs. Obviously we want to try to cater to both of them, but multiplying the options in itself has effect on the UX.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  >how does this implementation enhance or detract from the user's ability to do what they're trying to do? If you're capitalistic about things though sometimes you want to do what will hinder your user's ability to fulfill their goal. For example at the supermarket - I want to get milk and get away quick but the supermarket wants me to go through the whole store and be confronted with offers and the smell of the instore bakery, etc.. My experience is frustrated on purpose to benefit the business financially. Similarly with "checkout" offers on a sales website. One particular printer makes you manually leaf through about 12 pages of offers after you've confirmed your purchase - it's a poorer UX (IMO) but will benefit the business. Others will argue, this last case say, is an improved UX as I get the chance to bag offers I perhaps hadn't noticed. Thus it's subjective.

roadnottaken 16y ago

Isn't Google a huge, obvious exception to his thesis? To be fair, it's not an e-commerce site, but it preserves user experience at the expense of "leaving zillions of dollars on the table" in "lost revenue" by not plastering the site with ads. I think in light of Google a big part of his argument is preposterous.

mikeklaas 16y ago
That is only true if more obtrusive ads were necessarily the more revenue-maximizing. Even the article admits that the obtrusiveness from up-selling can be counter-productive and be revenue-harmful. I believe that when Google changed the ad click area to just the title/link rather than the whole div, the total # of clicks was lowered (fewer misclicks), but revenue was not affected since the value of each click was higher.

gonk 16y ago

Making money and having happy customers are not two mutually exclusive ideals. Its quite satisfying to have both conditions occur in business, and quite possible no matter what Mr. Marx has to say about it. If you do something for someone that they are willing to pay you for, then congratulations: that is the nature of productive success in business.