3 ms·

The distance between a large effort and a moderate effort is not very long; from the user's perspective, both things are in the realm of the Hassle. The chasm

by nine_k 2y ago

The distance between a large effort and a moderate effort is not very long; from the user's perspective, both things are in the realm of the Hassle. The chasm between a small required effort and zero effort is vast, from the user's perspective. Any product person will tell you that. Hitting the right zero-effort target is what separates a runaway success from a tepid reaction.

spinningslate 2y ago
yes, definitely. I find it helpful to think of usability and friction as an inverse square law relation [0]. Small increases in friction (x-axis) cause dramatic drop-off in usability (y-axis) to begin with, then correspondingly less so. Specific user tolerance will vary, but adoption broadly follows a similar path - exponential drop off. I've never seen any data to back this up in a quantitative sense (though interested if anyone has?). Nevertheless, I've still found it useful as a qualitative rule of thumb in a positive sense: shaving off small edges of friction can have non-linear return in adoption and satisfaction. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law
- nine_k 2y ago
  I like the electromagnetic analogy. I could say along these lines that lowering friction is like upgrading from aluminium wires to copper wires, and removing friction is like upgrading to a superconductor. The change becomes qualitative.
hawk_ 2y ago
> The chasm between a small required effort and zero effort is vast, from the user's perspective. Wow! I think I have intuitively/subconsciously worked this into some products I have developed but never had it articulated this way. This is very useful. Any books you'd recommend on this topic?
- nine_k 2y ago
  Sorry, can't recommend a good book. My opinions come from interacting with actual product people, and from watching "undercooked", "overpriced", "poorly made", "easy to replicate" things achieve enviable success and wide adoption very quickly: PHP, Docker, Heroku, Dropbox, etc. They all completely removed friction in some narrow but important areas, and this was more important than all their very real shortcomings.

by nine_k 2y ago

spinningslate 2y ago

yes, definitely. I find it helpful to think of usability and friction as an inverse square law relation [0]. Small increases in friction (x-axis) cause dramatic drop-off in usability (y-axis) to begin with, then correspondingly less so. Specific user tolerance will vary, but adoption broadly follows a similar path - exponential drop off. I've never seen any data to back this up in a quantitative sense (though interested if anyone has?). Nevertheless, I've still found it useful as a qualitative rule of thumb in a positive sense: shaving off small edges of friction can have non-linear return in adoption and satisfaction. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

nine_k 2y ago
I like the electromagnetic analogy. I could say along these lines that lowering friction is like upgrading from aluminium wires to copper wires, and removing friction is like upgrading to a superconductor. The change becomes qualitative.

hawk_ 2y ago

> The chasm between a small required effort and zero effort is vast, from the user's perspective. Wow! I think I have intuitively/subconsciously worked this into some products I have developed but never had it articulated this way. This is very useful. Any books you'd recommend on this topic?

nine_k 2y ago
Sorry, can't recommend a good book. My opinions come from interacting with actual product people, and from watching "undercooked", "overpriced", "poorly made", "easy to replicate" things achieve enviable success and wide adoption very quickly: PHP, Docker, Heroku, Dropbox, etc. They all completely removed friction in some narrow but important areas, and this was more important than all their very real shortcomings.