4 ms·
There's a selection effect here in that smart-enough users won't bother contacting support if they work around an issue on their own, or if something is actuall
by Jach 1mo ago
There's a selection effect here in that smart-enough users won't bother contacting support if they work around an issue on their own, or if something is actually a non-issue for 99%+ of the user base. The ratio of usage and support contacts can be monitored. I fear a lot of devs develop unproductive mental models of the user purely from a minority sample.
- carlosjobim 1mo agoDesigning for the stupid users also makes life easier for the smart users. No matter what you are designing. It makes your product better.
- matkoniecz 1mo agoSometimes, not always. It may result in power users losing some features.
- carlosjobim 1mo agoSure, but whenever you can make life easier for those who have are having hard time without making life harder for those who aren't, you should do it. For example, no power user benefits from having to use work arounds to make a product function. It's an annoyance to them, and it's an insurmountable obstacle to others.
- matkoniecz 29d agoOh, I agree with that. Just dispute claim that any improvement for newbies is improving things also for experts.
- DrewADesign 1mo agoNot necessarily. Interface design is a communication medium. A skilled designer can often communicate to multiple types of users solving different types of problems. When an interface is “dumbed down,” it’s usually because a non-designer was trying to ‘clean it up’ or make it pretty by removing what they didn’t need and ignoring what everybody else needs. It’s difficult, and that’s why it’s a distinct field with its own degrees and professional programs.
- matkoniecz 29d agoThe claim was broader, specifically "Designing for the stupid users also makes life easier for the smart users. No matter what you are designing" it can be in fact improvement for both but in many cases it is not
- steveBK123 1mo agoWild to me and speaks volumes of HN/SWEs that this is getting downvoted.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- ragall 1mo agoThat's trivially false. There's a large difference between products designed primarily to have a low learning curve, and products designed to maximize the efficiency of users that have been trained in its use.
- carlosjobim 1mo agoThe only products which should have any mandatory learning curve are products which actually allow an expert to do something out of the ordinarily, which simply could not be done with an easy to use product. Such as some musical instruments. Otherwise, you can most of the time make a product which can be easy to use for novices while retaining maximum efficiency for experts.
- ragall 1mo agoCompare a professional trader's UI to something consumer-grade like Robinhood, or analytics UIs designed for marketers (exposing only a few cute graphs with a handful of predefined parameters) to the dashboards used in physics labs, or simple graphics programs vs. Blenders. Maximum efficiency for experts requires removing information that would be distracting and redundant for them, but essential for novices to understand the working model of the program, so you're pretty much wrong.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- steveBK123 1mo agoSmart users forced to use work arounds may also find the workaround is to switch to your competitors product !