5 ms·

Do you think they prioritized the newest users/prospects versus power users?

by tln 8y ago

xtiansimon 8y ago
I don't imagine excuses for bad business decisions--There's really no point to adding a layer of rationality on top of an all too common failure. This isn't a "game". I don't believe there are different levels of 'user'. This platform brings together your real-time geo-position, published maps, published transit schedules, multiple transit systems, and real-time system updates together. It's all there and all useful for every user from the very start. The failure in the redesign is to leave the 'page' or 'modal' UX behind in favor of this hybrid/gesture controlled marble on maze UX. They hit a home run from the beginning, and fracked it up. What's the 'nature' of a map? It's to be as big as possible, and yet they've layerd the schedule and took 50% of the screen away from the map. If there's a difference among users, it's found when you live in a transit-rich community, like I do in NYC Metro (and you need a good app like Transit was). If you live in the sticks and there's only one line, then you open the app, check the schedule and you're done. This is why I believe this _criticism_ is so important. I think we need to have a way to articulate these choices. Maybe a critical voice asking _Should we make this UX change at all?_, _Are we staring at our navel?_ Which is to say, in our own little bubble? Are these changes going to improve the software? Or, are we only showing off so we can justify our employment? If they wanted to do such a radical redesign, why not fork the project? They could capture 'new users' with the Transit Marble Maze app.
- tln 8y ago
  I wasn't trying to excuse their choices, but learn a bit about this case. > If there's a difference among users, it's found when you live in a transit-rich community, like I do in NYC Metro Thanks, this is the context I was interested in.

Do you think they prioritized the newest users/prospects versus power users?

by tln 8y ago

Do you think they prioritized the newest users/prospects versus power users?

I don't imagine excuses for bad business decisions--There's really no point to adding a layer of rationality on top of an all too common failure. This isn't a "game". I don't believe there are different levels of 'user'. This platform brings together your real-time geo-position, published maps, published transit schedules, multiple transit systems, and real-time system updates together. It's all there and all useful for every user from the very start. The failure in the redesign is to leave the 'page' or 'modal' UX behind in favor of this hybrid/gesture controlled marble on maze UX. They hit a home run from the beginning, and fracked it up. What's the 'nature' of a map? It's to be as big as possible, and yet they've layerd the schedule and took 50% of the screen away from the map. If there's a difference among users, it's found when you live in a transit-rich community, like I do in NYC Metro (and you need a good app like Transit was). If you live in the sticks and there's only one line, then you open the app, check the schedule and you're done. This is why I believe this _criticism_ is so important. I think we need to have a way to articulate these choices. Maybe a critical voice asking _Should we make this UX change at all?_, _Are we staring at our navel?_ Which is to say, in our own little bubble? Are these changes going to improve the software? Or, are we only showing off so we can justify our employment? If they wanted to do such a radical redesign, why not fork the project? They could capture 'new users' with the Transit Marble Maze app.

tln 8y ago
I wasn't trying to excuse their choices, but learn a bit about this case. > If there's a difference among users, it's found when you live in a transit-rich community, like I do in NYC Metro Thanks, this is the context I was interested in.