3 ms·

I agree with basically everything said in the post. I also don’t believe any sane and experienced software professional would disagree with any point made here.

I agree with basically everything said in the post. I also don’t believe any sane and experienced software professional would disagree with any point made here. I think the point is to strive to satisfy ease of usability and function for the highest percentage of users possible. If you have multiple personas of users who use your application, the amount of time you spend with the R&D of the UX to satisfy each persona should likely be proportional to the percentage of revenue each persona brings in. I’m a backend developer who is pretty awful at developing good UIs, but damn I appreciate a good one when it comes along and feel like the part of the brain that’s used to build a very solid UI is a special one that not many people have developed.

colinjoy 6y ago
“the amount of time you spend [...] should likely be proportional to the percentage of revenue each persona brings in” ... and with that you enter the deep waters of revenue attribution. Whose needs are more important? Those of the exec signing the deal, interested in reporting and auditing features, or those of the poor schmuck using form #B67-A hours a day to enter data? Your customers and your users are not necessarily the same people.
ignoramous 6y ago
> I think the point is to strive to satisfy ease of usability and function for the highest percentage of users possible. And so, it blows my mind how Instagram and WhatsApp have continued to get their UX right despite adding so many features over the years. This is super hard considering more than half the world, not all of whom are technology savvy, use WhatsApp and Instagram on daily basis with flawless understanding. I mean, sure, they might struggle a bit, but it isn't anywhere close to frustrating them unlike other popular software. Not to mention how frictionless, smooth their entire UX is. I guess, design focused on content consumption is easier (Email/IM) than content creation (Microsoft Office)? Or, may be, the value of popular software is such, that people put up with it, anyway, and learn to live with it despite the UX?
- XCSme 6y ago
  Using a chat application or scrolling through a feed is not hard. Users can easily learn a new UX if the product really provides value. Yes, having better UX is good for many reasons, but people have always learned to go around bad UX in order to achieve their goals. Facebook has a shitty UX, I never find what I'm looking for, spammed with ads, fake news, slow loading times, bugged notifications, yet it's still one of the most popular sites on the planet. Their ad manager is a joke when it comes to UX and bugs, yet people still spend billions on advertising on Facebook.

colinjoy 6y ago

“the amount of time you spend [...] should likely be proportional to the percentage of revenue each persona brings in” ... and with that you enter the deep waters of revenue attribution. Whose needs are more important? Those of the exec signing the deal, interested in reporting and auditing features, or those of the poor schmuck using form #B67-A hours a day to enter data? Your customers and your users are not necessarily the same people.

ignoramous 6y ago

> I think the point is to strive to satisfy ease of usability and function for the highest percentage of users possible. And so, it blows my mind how Instagram and WhatsApp have continued to get their UX right despite adding so many features over the years. This is super hard considering more than half the world, not all of whom are technology savvy, use WhatsApp and Instagram on daily basis with flawless understanding. I mean, sure, they might struggle a bit, but it isn't anywhere close to frustrating them unlike other popular software. Not to mention how frictionless, smooth their entire UX is. I guess, design focused on content consumption is easier (Email/IM) than content creation (Microsoft Office)? Or, may be, the value of popular software is such, that people put up with it, anyway, and learn to live with it despite the UX?

XCSme 6y ago
Using a chat application or scrolling through a feed is not hard. Users can easily learn a new UX if the product really provides value. Yes, having better UX is good for many reasons, but people have always learned to go around bad UX in order to achieve their goals. Facebook has a shitty UX, I never find what I'm looking for, spammed with ads, fake news, slow loading times, bugged notifications, yet it's still one of the most popular sites on the planet. Their ad manager is a joke when it comes to UX and bugs, yet people still spend billions on advertising on Facebook.