5 ms·

We should be paying more attention to effort per interaction.

21 points by sahillavingia 15y ago

Shenglong 15y ago
I think this is an interesting train of thought, although I doubt effort will ever go down to zero. After all, we derive pleasure out of many things we do which take effort. I'll often travel to meet a friend for dinner, even though I could've eaten at home, and talked to her over voip and webcam. I think more so, we're minimizing effort per quality of interaction - or maximizing quality of interaction per effort.
- username3 15y ago
  The effort would go below zero when things interact for us and we don't have to think about sending a message or even replying to them anymore. Everyone will know everything and won't care to do anything.
geeksam 15y ago
Effort per interaction will only be zero when interactions require no cognitive overhead. In which case, why are we bothering with them?
orky56 15y ago
Product people are always preaching this. Every interaction should be judged based on the return of that investment (the investment being the interaction). If the product improves and can deliver that much better of an experience (matching and exceeding user expectations), then that interaction is worth it. Each interaction should be prioritized according to this ROI and then chosen based on achieving product-market fit (PMF).
geeksam 15y ago
Also, this appears to suffer from what I like to call the "Razor-blade Singularity" fallacy: http://www.economist.com/node/5624861?story_id=5624861 http://www.economist.com/node/5624861?story_id=5624861
pinko 15y ago
Lower effort per interaction is only a net win if the value of interactions remains constant and the number of interactions doesn't scale up to compensate for the decreased effort. In short, my experience has been that as communication in general has gotten easier, the average individual communication has gotten more trivial, and the signal/noise ratio has worsened. I'm not at all convinced it's a net win.
- hammock 15y ago
  That's a hilariously antisocial response (no offense implied). I understand your signal/noise argument, and that seems to me a smaller, tactical issue. On net higher velocity of interaction is a benefit much like globalized trade is a benefit. edit: here's an analogy closer to home. when a good, wealth-creating startup raises a second round of funds, diminishing marginal returns to capital means the average capital productivity might go down, but the total product (wealth created) tends to go up.

21 points by sahillavingia 15y ago

I think this is an interesting train of thought, although I doubt effort will ever go down to zero. After all, we derive pleasure out of many things we do which take effort. I'll often travel to meet a friend for dinner, even though I could've eaten at home, and talked to her over voip and webcam. I think more so, we're minimizing effort per quality of interaction - or maximizing quality of interaction per effort.

username3 15y ago
The effort would go below zero when things interact for us and we don't have to think about sending a message or even replying to them anymore. Everyone will know everything and won't care to do anything.

geeksam 15y ago

Effort per interaction will only be zero when interactions require no cognitive overhead. In which case, why are we bothering with them?

orky56 15y ago

Product people are always preaching this. Every interaction should be judged based on the return of that investment (the investment being the interaction). If the product improves and can deliver that much better of an experience (matching and exceeding user expectations), then that interaction is worth it. Each interaction should be prioritized according to this ROI and then chosen based on achieving product-market fit (PMF).

geeksam 15y ago

Also, this appears to suffer from what I like to call the "Razor-blade Singularity" fallacy: http://www.economist.com/node/5624861?story_id=5624861 http://www.economist.com/node/5624861?story_id=5624861

pinko 15y ago

Lower effort per interaction is only a net win if the value of interactions remains constant and the number of interactions doesn't scale up to compensate for the decreased effort. In short, my experience has been that as communication in general has gotten easier, the average individual communication has gotten more trivial, and the signal/noise ratio has worsened. I'm not at all convinced it's a net win.

hammock 15y ago
That's a hilariously antisocial response (no offense implied). I understand your signal/noise argument, and that seems to me a smaller, tactical issue. On net higher velocity of interaction is a benefit much like globalized trade is a benefit. edit: here's an analogy closer to home. when a good, wealth-creating startup raises a second round of funds, diminishing marginal returns to capital means the average capital productivity might go down, but the total product (wealth created) tends to go up.