5 ms·

Many companies have tons of desginers who need to prove they are needed, so they force change for the sake of change - at the cost of users.

by rvba 3y ago

andai 3y ago
It might be like the thing at Google, where people want to get promoted and big changes or new launches are the only way up, regardless of the effect on user experience.
- Projectiboga 3y ago
  With M$ the bias is towards their certification and training business. They have to change enough to make training seem more important.
  - Spooky23 3y ago
    That’s just one leg of the stool. They used to be relentless at driving SQL Server Enterprise adoption. Now it’s shifted to M365 E5, plus accessory subscriptions. PowerBI, Viva and Copilot for whatever are the new legs.
nordsieck 3y ago
> Many companies have tons of desginers who need to prove they are needed, so they force change for the sake of change - at the cost of users. That may be one part. But another part is companies that need to demonstrate to their uses that a version change is a big change. Microsoft is (im)famous for this: as far as I can tell, there has been little need for the constant UI churn in windows aside from convincing users that a new version is big enough to warrant that appellation (as opposed to a service pack/patch).
- bombcar 3y ago
  You’d think that the SaaS Office would change less, but it seems to churn about as much as ever.
waboremo 3y ago
Designers alone can't push through a change for the sake of change as their work relies entirely on user research. Even if they do have the research needed to prove a change is required, they also have to get developers on board. So I don't know where this conspiracy theory comes from, but it's entirely unfounded unless you're talking about a designer like Jony Ive with the power to go through multiple obstacles with ease, in which case the change isn't happening to prove he's needed but because he has a different vision.
- mLuby 3y ago
  > as their work relies entirely on user research Definitely not the case everywhere.
  - waboremo 3y ago
    It's the case everywhere. A designer (in the context of software/hardware) does not work without user research, that is core to their work. Any position that does not require user research in design is titled differently these days.
- patmorgan23 3y ago
  Unless the designers end up becoming the product managers/owners and stop scrutinizing the designers.
shlubbert 3y ago
Of course no engineers would ever make bad UX decisions.

Many companies have tons of desginers who need to prove they are needed, so they force change for the sake of change - at the cost of users.

by rvba 3y ago

Many companies have tons of desginers who need to prove they are needed, so they force change for the sake of change - at the cost of users.

andai 3y ago

It might be like the thing at Google, where people want to get promoted and big changes or new launches are the only way up, regardless of the effect on user experience.

Projectiboga 3y ago
With M$ the bias is towards their certification and training business. They have to change enough to make training seem more important.
- Spooky23 3y ago
  That’s just one leg of the stool. They used to be relentless at driving SQL Server Enterprise adoption. Now it’s shifted to M365 E5, plus accessory subscriptions. PowerBI, Viva and Copilot for whatever are the new legs.

nordsieck 3y ago

> Many companies have tons of desginers who need to prove they are needed, so they force change for the sake of change - at the cost of users. That may be one part. But another part is companies that need to demonstrate to their uses that a version change is a big change. Microsoft is (im)famous for this: as far as I can tell, there has been little need for the constant UI churn in windows aside from convincing users that a new version is big enough to warrant that appellation (as opposed to a service pack/patch).

bombcar 3y ago
You’d think that the SaaS Office would change less, but it seems to churn about as much as ever.

waboremo 3y ago

Designers alone can't push through a change for the sake of change as their work relies entirely on user research. Even if they do have the research needed to prove a change is required, they also have to get developers on board. So I don't know where this conspiracy theory comes from, but it's entirely unfounded unless you're talking about a designer like Jony Ive with the power to go through multiple obstacles with ease, in which case the change isn't happening to prove he's needed but because he has a different vision.

mLuby 3y ago
> as their work relies entirely on user research Definitely not the case everywhere.
- waboremo 3y ago
  It's the case everywhere. A designer (in the context of software/hardware) does not work without user research, that is core to their work. Any position that does not require user research in design is titled differently these days.
patmorgan23 3y ago
Unless the designers end up becoming the product managers/owners and stop scrutinizing the designers.

shlubbert 3y ago

Of course no engineers would ever make bad UX decisions.