3 ms·
The point or question I was raising was specifically about UX. Design, which includes UX, isn't done in a vacuum. There's many competing interests and environme
by nirvdrum 5y ago
The point or question I was raising was specifically about UX. Design, which includes UX, isn't done in a vacuum. There's many competing interests and environmental considerations that ultimately influence a product. Norman spends a good deal of time reinforcing that idea, I think mostly to drive home the point that reality doesn't match the platonic ideal. That's what I was alluding when I said "I suppose I can see the business justification for that."
Carving out a niche when getting started is probably quite prudent. But, that doesn't mean it's a good user experience. There's a lot of retorts in this comment section about how any amount of settings is tantamount to total design failure. I think that's too reductive and I'm trying to reconcile that research on the topic.
- nfw2 5y agoIt seems weird to talk about something as "good user experience" or "bad user experience" in a universal sense without a specific use case in mind. Something can be a good experience for one set of users and a poor experience for others.
- maccolgan 5y agoSettings allow you to customize a software beyond its developer-intended path, while that doesn't take away from the "default" path, it maximizes the total amount of good experience. That's how it's universal.
- mark-r 5y agoThe customization process becomes part of the UX though. That doesn't automatically make it good.
- nfw2 5y agoMy objection was to the view that supporting only 99% of users is "bad" in some absolute way. Obviously 100% is better than 99%, but good and bad are relative, and 99% might be good enough when considering the actual needs of the product that's being developed.