4 ms·
I think you're right in some circumstances and perhaps not so in others. Gmail in it's current amalgamation is slick and some features are hidden in menus that
by johndavidback 14y ago
I think you're right in some circumstances and perhaps not so in others. Gmail in it's current amalgamation is slick and some features are hidden in menus that really don't get that much action. This is certainly a preferable user experience.
At worke we track Omniture analytics on every click event on our websites, half of most buttons/links/actions are never interacted with.
- bwertz 14y agoInteresting data point that 50% of your products features are never been interacted with - I would assume that this is true for many products
- claudius 14y agoThe difference is in simplifying the UI versus taking features away. The former is perfectly fine, the best UIs (in my opinion) don’t exist/are perfectly invisible. However, taking features away in order to ‘simplify the UI’ is the wrong approach – making these features accessible in such a way that they don’t clutter the UI, preferably sorted/ranked by frequency of usage certainly is superior to dropping them. That's why Emacs has M-x/M-:, menus were invented, every sane desktop environment has some way to bring up a programme by its name and human-readable configuration files were invented: Such that the most obvious parts of the UI can offer the most frequently used features and all other, less-frequently used but still necessary, features are accessible in some way.
- micahmcfarland 14y agoThis roughly correlates with "the 80-20 rule": 80% of your users will use only 20% of your features.