3 ms·

> Users have tasks to concentrate on. Right, we also need to remember that simple is not better than possible. If your interface is too simple and feature lim

> Users have tasks to concentrate on. Right, we also need to remember that simple is not better than possible. If your interface is too simple and feature limited that your user can not complete their task, then you have gone too far. We want to reduce friction as much as possible while still allowing a customer to solve their problem.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
And then we should reduce the friction further to allow the user to solve their problem as fast as possible. That means batch-processing and some other complex features. This is because it's very likely that a chunk of your users will not be solving a problem once, but will be solving 200 identical problems a day, 5 days a week, for a year.
_tulpa 6y ago
> simple is not better than possible. Dang, that's just the most perfectly succinct phrasing of (an answer to) my pet hate in software/developer attitude/life in general. But it also seems that the 'possible' facet is just nowhere near as financially lucrative as 'simple'.
- buzzwordninja 6y ago
  It depends. Mostly on what kind of users you might have. If the underlying model is very powerful but so complicated that it's very difficult to convey it to anyone, is it of any use? "Financially lucrative" in that case is simply a proxy for "can I get anyone go understand what is even going on?" I've built an online pub quiz, and I'm doing as much hallway usability testing (in the Zoom hallway) as I can. Early on, every single one ended up with me changing things from being more flexible and powerful to being simpler. Either the underlying model, or just what is being presented/allowed in the user interface at any given time. There is just no point in trying to provide lots of options instead of a well thought out middle-of-the-road path of obvious next steps if no-one will be able to get around to doing what they came for. People can't become power users if they aren't users. UX design is so hard, but luckily it's also very interesting :)

TeMPOraL 6y ago

And then we should reduce the friction further to allow the user to solve their problem as fast as possible. That means batch-processing and some other complex features. This is because it's very likely that a chunk of your users will not be solving a problem once, but will be solving 200 identical problems a day, 5 days a week, for a year.

_tulpa 6y ago

> simple is not better than possible. Dang, that's just the most perfectly succinct phrasing of (an answer to) my pet hate in software/developer attitude/life in general. But it also seems that the 'possible' facet is just nowhere near as financially lucrative as 'simple'.

buzzwordninja 6y ago
It depends. Mostly on what kind of users you might have. If the underlying model is very powerful but so complicated that it's very difficult to convey it to anyone, is it of any use? "Financially lucrative" in that case is simply a proxy for "can I get anyone go understand what is even going on?" I've built an online pub quiz, and I'm doing as much hallway usability testing (in the Zoom hallway) as I can. Early on, every single one ended up with me changing things from being more flexible and powerful to being simpler. Either the underlying model, or just what is being presented/allowed in the user interface at any given time. There is just no point in trying to provide lots of options instead of a well thought out middle-of-the-road path of obvious next steps if no-one will be able to get around to doing what they came for. People can't become power users if they aren't users. UX design is so hard, but luckily it's also very interesting :)