3 ms·

>The UX people were redesigning workflow to be “easier” and less information dense and the experienced people (who worked mostly on commissions mind you) where

>The UX people were redesigning workflow to be “easier” and less information dense and the experienced people (who worked mostly on commissions mind you) where very pissed and wanted their hot keys and their at a glance information. That doesn't necessarily mean that the UX people were wrong though. Even if their changes made the experienced people slightly slower, it could be worth it if it significantly sped up onboarding.

JohnFen 4y ago
You only onboard someone once. In theory, that person will have to be using the system every day for years. Why optimize for the one-time thing at the expense of the everyday use?
- sfink 4y ago
  The math isn't straightforward. With a high enough rate of churn, there can be more onboarding work hours than post-onboarding work hours, especially if the onboarding ramp up time takes a while (as it presumably would if you only optimized for experienced use). And high rates of churn are not exactly uncommon. Also, everybody goes through onboarding, and initial impressions have a lot of power. It's pretty easy to create a system that everyone hates just because it's a little difficult during onboarding. Social reinforcement can be stronger than reality. (Personally, I still lean towards optimizing for experienced use, if you can do it without sacrificing the onboarding experience too much. Hotkeys that the new employee never needs to see or know about are a typical example, though I prefer a smoother ramp by mentioning the key on applicable menu items. The newbie can ignore it, the intermediate user can learn from it, the experienced user can ignore the menu.)
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  I suppose that the Devil's Advocate sort of counterargument is that for many startups or businesses on the bubble of survival, their most important task is for paying customers to understand the basics of their software and get hooked with a paid subscription quickly. From that perspective, it's ok if customers don't absolutely LOVE the software in a year or two, as long as they like it just enough to be paying today.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    Perhaps, but I have no sympathy for companies using that business model.
- asoneth 4y ago
  > Why optimize for the one-time thing at the expense of the everyday use? I'm not necessarily endorsing this perspective, and it depends on the specifics, but there are cases where this makes business sense. If you take a task that requires an expensive expert and make it something that an unskilled worker can do then you you can lower overall labor costs even if each user is less efficient in the new system.
- imp0cat 4y ago
  It's a bit more complicated than that. Here's a great article that explains how users can be sorted into categories (from beginner to student to expert) and what each of them wants and needs. https://breakingpoint.substack.com/p/your-three-kinds-of-customers https://breakingpoint.substack.com/p/your-three-kinds-of-cus...
ruined 4y ago
It is possible to achieve both. Making an explicit choice to degrade the ability and satisfaction of experienced employees is just optimizing for staff churn.

JohnFen 4y ago

You only onboard someone once. In theory, that person will have to be using the system every day for years. Why optimize for the one-time thing at the expense of the everyday use?

sfink 4y ago
The math isn't straightforward. With a high enough rate of churn, there can be more onboarding work hours than post-onboarding work hours, especially if the onboarding ramp up time takes a while (as it presumably would if you only optimized for experienced use). And high rates of churn are not exactly uncommon. Also, everybody goes through onboarding, and initial impressions have a lot of power. It's pretty easy to create a system that everyone hates just because it's a little difficult during onboarding. Social reinforcement can be stronger than reality. (Personally, I still lean towards optimizing for experienced use, if you can do it without sacrificing the onboarding experience too much. Hotkeys that the new employee never needs to see or know about are a typical example, though I prefer a smoother ramp by mentioning the key on applicable menu items. The newbie can ignore it, the intermediate user can learn from it, the experienced user can ignore the menu.)
logicalmonster 4y ago
I suppose that the Devil's Advocate sort of counterargument is that for many startups or businesses on the bubble of survival, their most important task is for paying customers to understand the basics of their software and get hooked with a paid subscription quickly. From that perspective, it's ok if customers don't absolutely LOVE the software in a year or two, as long as they like it just enough to be paying today.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  Perhaps, but I have no sympathy for companies using that business model.
asoneth 4y ago
> Why optimize for the one-time thing at the expense of the everyday use? I'm not necessarily endorsing this perspective, and it depends on the specifics, but there are cases where this makes business sense. If you take a task that requires an expensive expert and make it something that an unskilled worker can do then you you can lower overall labor costs even if each user is less efficient in the new system.
imp0cat 4y ago
It's a bit more complicated than that. Here's a great article that explains how users can be sorted into categories (from beginner to student to expert) and what each of them wants and needs. https://breakingpoint.substack.com/p/your-three-kinds-of-customers https://breakingpoint.substack.com/p/your-three-kinds-of-cus...

ruined 4y ago

It is possible to achieve both. Making an explicit choice to degrade the ability and satisfaction of experienced employees is just optimizing for staff churn.