6 ms·
Beware the self-validating assumption. Your users are your users because they like your site better than, say Zappos. By definition, your users prefer your site
by tlb 18y ago
Beware the self-validating assumption. Your users are your users because they like your site better than, say Zappos. By definition, your users prefer your site. But as long as your market share is only a tiny fraction of the whole market, you can't say anything about the rest of the population.
It's only when you acquire a substantial fraction of the entire market that you can claim to have validated assumptions about the market in general.
- chops 18y agoThis is a great point! While PG suggests that it's better to have a small number of rapid supporters than a large number of moderate supporters, it's important to find the maximum on the curve. The question is how many rapid supporters would you lose and gain by adding prices in more "accessible" locations? How less rabid would your users become by such a change? These are important questions that would need to be answered to gain market share. My gut is that the fact that you have to hover over the image to see the price is detracting. By comparison, you could show the price slightly more prominently, without having it be an eyesore (show in a light grey under the item picture, that maybe highlights to black when hovered over). This would, imo, make the price conscious happier, without getting in the way of design.
- stevedekorte 18y agoEven when you have market share, it's not clear if your assumptions are validated as it is difficult to isolate variables in the real world. For example, is Microsoft or MySpace dominant because of their UI or despite their UI? Because of their development practices or despite them? Or was their principle asset that of being a first mover? How does one separate those variables?