3 ms·

I think the key is the mental model, as you said. One danger is trying to reduce multiple different concepts to a single concept. For example, instead of think

I think the key is the mental model, as you said. One danger is trying to reduce multiple different concepts to a single concept. For example, instead of thinking about an email, a task, and a calendar entry as separate things, we could just have a generic concept like an "entity" which has attributes like a time/date or a list of people or a body of text. Programmers love that kind of abstraction. We love having a few simple pieces that we can combine in various ways to get what we want. That is literally what we do when we program. Normal people, though, hate that. Instead of giving them a tool to get their job done, we've given them a puzzle. They need to figure out how to combine the pieces. And what's obvious to us, is absolutely not obvious to them. I haven't seen your UX, so I don't know if this is an issue, but I would focus on the mental model. As a user, what do I need to know to start using the tool? If that's more than a single sentence (to start) then you're in trouble. I'm always happy to brainstorm with people. Hit me up if you want to chat sometime.

CharlieDigital 11mo ago
> Normal people, though, hate that. Instead of giving them a tool to get their job done, we've given them a puzzle Normal people already have a process and mental model of fitting tools into that process. Loosely coupled tools -- as inefficient as they may be -- have the benefit of being able to conform to those existing processes and models. It's why the humble spreadsheet is still so widely used as the glue between people and processes because it is just rigid enough while offering endless flexibility and handling of edge cases. On the other hand, highly integrated or opinionated tools need to be both easy and flexible enough to fit existing models/processes or it will simply overwhelm new users. Or it has to have some other benefit that is significant enough that users are willing to change their models/processes.
- GMoromisato 11mo ago
  The spreadsheet is a great example. The core mental model is extremely simple: it's the same as a paper spreadsheet but you can put calculations (formulas) in a cell. That's it! That's the mental model. Once you go beyond that model, people get confused. What's a pivot table? What's the difference between $A1 and A$1? Why is my date showing up as a number? But it works because 80% of the people only need to know about the basic mental model. If you try to reduce email, notes, meetings into a single mental model, then you're back to the puzzle problem and people have to solve it to do even the simplest thing. You may or may not remember Lotus Improv, which was effectively a reinvention of the spreadsheet. In Improv, the core mental model was the pivot table, which allowed you to do some amazing things (e.g., "add up the sales for each quarter by product type"). But even the simplest things required people to understand the core concepts of a pivot table (columns, categories, rows, etc.). Tech people loved it. Normal people, not so much.

CharlieDigital 11mo ago

> Normal people, though, hate that. Instead of giving them a tool to get their job done, we've given them a puzzle Normal people already have a process and mental model of fitting tools into that process. Loosely coupled tools -- as inefficient as they may be -- have the benefit of being able to conform to those existing processes and models. It's why the humble spreadsheet is still so widely used as the glue between people and processes because it is just rigid enough while offering endless flexibility and handling of edge cases. On the other hand, highly integrated or opinionated tools need to be both easy and flexible enough to fit existing models/processes or it will simply overwhelm new users. Or it has to have some other benefit that is significant enough that users are willing to change their models/processes.

GMoromisato 11mo ago
The spreadsheet is a great example. The core mental model is extremely simple: it's the same as a paper spreadsheet but you can put calculations (formulas) in a cell. That's it! That's the mental model. Once you go beyond that model, people get confused. What's a pivot table? What's the difference between $A1 and A$1? Why is my date showing up as a number? But it works because 80% of the people only need to know about the basic mental model. If you try to reduce email, notes, meetings into a single mental model, then you're back to the puzzle problem and people have to solve it to do even the simplest thing. You may or may not remember Lotus Improv, which was effectively a reinvention of the spreadsheet. In Improv, the core mental model was the pivot table, which allowed you to do some amazing things (e.g., "add up the sales for each quarter by product type"). But even the simplest things required people to understand the core concepts of a pivot table (columns, categories, rows, etc.). Tech people loved it. Normal people, not so much.