4 ms·

>eventually perhaps, if the user is a continual user. but most users of most products are infrequent, and if your UI relies on being learned over time, it's p

>eventually perhaps, if the user is a continual user. but most users of most products are infrequent, and if your UI relies on being learned over time, it's probably not going to work for most people.

ethbr0 6y ago
"Not going to work for most people" in this context feels more like "going to impact my growth metrics." Which, yes, probably. But there are more goals in software development than hyper growth.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Particularly if your growth metric is number of registered users, silently ignoring those who didn't delete their account (almost nobody ever does). Following such metric prioritizes first-use experience (i.e. baiting registrations with UI glitter) over actual utility. Which is what I suspect happens a lot today (along with its related problem, optimizing for sale over continued use).
TeMPOraL 6y ago
That only applies to... niche stores and food ordering, maybe. If you're working on SaaS that is meant to help someone make money or work faster, there's a good chance you'll have people using your software as a part of their dayjob - i.e. 2-8 hours a day, 5 days a week, for years. If you treat your users as idiots and don't implement space for them to grow (i.e. power user features), you'll be wasting a lot of life for a lot of people (and a lot of money of their bosses). That's a heuristic I'd like to see being used in UX design: assume your software becomes a tool in some company, and you have full-time users spending their workday on it. Design to that group.
pravus 6y ago
What you are talking about is consumer entertainment. Even utility apps like Google Maps are something you have to learn and yes I'm tired of all the "What's new! Don't do anything until you click me!" garbage. I need the app to open, do what I want, and then close. Thank-you.

4 ms·

>eventually perhaps, if the user is a continual user. but most users of most products are infrequent, and if your UI relies on being learned over time, it's p

by notatoad 6y ago

ethbr0 6y ago
"Not going to work for most people" in this context feels more like "going to impact my growth metrics." Which, yes, probably. But there are more goals in software development than hyper growth.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Particularly if your growth metric is number of registered users, silently ignoring those who didn't delete their account (almost nobody ever does). Following such metric prioritizes first-use experience (i.e. baiting registrations with UI glitter) over actual utility. Which is what I suspect happens a lot today (along with its related problem, optimizing for sale over continued use).
TeMPOraL 6y ago
That only applies to... niche stores and food ordering, maybe. If you're working on SaaS that is meant to help someone make money or work faster, there's a good chance you'll have people using your software as a part of their dayjob - i.e. 2-8 hours a day, 5 days a week, for years. If you treat your users as idiots and don't implement space for them to grow (i.e. power user features), you'll be wasting a lot of life for a lot of people (and a lot of money of their bosses). That's a heuristic I'd like to see being used in UX design: assume your software becomes a tool in some company, and you have full-time users spending their workday on it. Design to that group.
pravus 6y ago
What you are talking about is consumer entertainment. Even utility apps like Google Maps are something you have to learn and yes I'm tired of all the "What's new! Don't do anything until you click me!" garbage. I need the app to open, do what I want, and then close. Thank-you.