3 ms·

"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 s

by 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.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
bradleyjoyce 16y ago
Since when is having a poor user experience good for business. I would also say that having a poor User Interface and poor User Experience is doubly bad for business. I'm reminded of the recent article posted here to HN about Expedia removing a single field from their checkout form that resulted in $12MM to the bottom line. Better UI + Better UX = Better Business
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  Wouldn't Google's UX be better if there were no ads? In the short term, maybe. In the long term, it would kill the company, so there wouldn't be any UX at all.
  - bradleyjoyce 16y ago
    no, you're confusing UI and UX... without ads, the user interface might be better (less ads, less clutter, etc) however, it could be argued that without the ads the user EXPERIENCE would not be as good... as very often ads are highly relevant to what the user is searching for on google and are therefore of value to the user.
    - fauigerzigerk 16y ago
      No, adverts are almost always irrelevant for almost everybody. They are a necessary (and sometimes unnecessary) evil. Most of us don't look for something to buy all the time. When I read my mail or a blog or whatever, that huge burger and coke ad right in the middle of the screen is an irrelevant distraction. When I have to watch that very same 30 second Hoodie Footie Pajamagram - the perfect way to snuggle up - segment before each and every 3m news video on CNBC it's a torture for my brain. I wish more sites gave me a reasonable way to buy myself freedom from that "highly relevant" bloat. [Edit] As a service provider, I appreciate the convenient excuse you provide for torturing my users ;-)
      - bradleyjoyce 16y ago
        I think Google's billions in revenue and profits would beg to differ with you. (ads on google search results are generally highly relevant and get clicked a lot) you are right, however, if the people you are generalizing for are HN folks, and websites other than Google.

by astine 16y ago

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.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

bradleyjoyce 16y ago

Since when is having a poor user experience good for business. I would also say that having a poor User Interface and poor User Experience is doubly bad for business. I'm reminded of the recent article posted here to HN about Expedia removing a single field from their checkout form that resulted in $12MM to the bottom line. Better UI + Better UX = Better Business

CWuestefeld 16y ago
Wouldn't Google's UX be better if there were no ads? In the short term, maybe. In the long term, it would kill the company, so there wouldn't be any UX at all.
- bradleyjoyce 16y ago
  no, you're confusing UI and UX... without ads, the user interface might be better (less ads, less clutter, etc) however, it could be argued that without the ads the user EXPERIENCE would not be as good... as very often ads are highly relevant to what the user is searching for on google and are therefore of value to the user.
  - fauigerzigerk 16y ago
    No, adverts are almost always irrelevant for almost everybody. They are a necessary (and sometimes unnecessary) evil. Most of us don't look for something to buy all the time. When I read my mail or a blog or whatever, that huge burger and coke ad right in the middle of the screen is an irrelevant distraction. When I have to watch that very same 30 second Hoodie Footie Pajamagram - the perfect way to snuggle up - segment before each and every 3m news video on CNBC it's a torture for my brain. I wish more sites gave me a reasonable way to buy myself freedom from that "highly relevant" bloat. [Edit] As a service provider, I appreciate the convenient excuse you provide for torturing my users ;-)
    - bradleyjoyce 16y ago
      I think Google's billions in revenue and profits would beg to differ with you. (ads on google search results are generally highly relevant and get clicked a lot) you are right, however, if the people you are generalizing for are HN folks, and websites other than Google.