4 ms·
I think there are some strong points in the article but overall it misses a major point. Whatever interface you are designing, the underlying service you are bu
by dkrich 14y ago
I think there are some strong points in the article but overall it misses a major point. Whatever interface you are designing, the underlying service you are building the interface for has to be something people really, really want.
The most cognitively recognizable interface won't get people using something if they don't care about the information coming from the other side. Conversely, if there is information that the end user needs, he will spend the time learning the interface. For example, if Shazam didn't exist and you heard a song you really liked at the bar, you might ask around, google some fragment of the lyrics you recognize, etc. to find out the same information. So if Shazam had an interface that was far less-intuitive, I have to believe it would still be very popular.
That sounds simple, but I think the article puts the weight on the interface without much regard to the fact that all interfaces are merely a means to an end.
- vinceguidry 14y ago> Whatever interface you are designing, the underlying service you are building the interface for has to be something people really, really want. How do you target that? I'm not entirely sure you can. Is there a set of steps you can follow, a design process, that will get you to something people really, really want?
- acgourley 14y agoThat's generally what a lean startup process / mindset is supposed to help you find. The idea being it's not something you can get a read on without putting a prototype MVP into the world to test.
- ucee054 14y agohttp://www.jwz.org/doc/groupware.html http://www.jwz.org/doc/groupware.html
- SergeyHack 14y agoSearch for "Customer Development" for a lot of insight.
- jdrobins2000 14y agoThat's an excellent point, which I will take a step further: It has to provide something that people truly want, and the acceptable cognitive load is a function of the pleasure derived from having that desire fulfilled. The pleasure payoff must be higher than the pain inflicted (so to speak). Just because people want something, it doesn't mean they are truly willing to put in the required effort to get it. As the average pain tolerance of the mass market is low, the payoff must be very high (communication with loved ones, financial well-being, major time savings) for a high pain point (cognitive load in this case) to be endured. It is helpful to identify if there are multiple types of users, each with different goals and pain points. If that is the case, it is optimal to only expose users to the cognitive load necessary for the tasks they are interested in. For example, there could be anonymous browsers, participants, authors, and moderators. In that case, the cognitive load for casual browsers should be as low as possible, since they have the least benefit and buy-in. As with graceful degradation for less capable web browser software, apps should degrade gracefully for users with less capability or interest in using the additional features which require a higher cognitive load. With regards to Shazam, I disagree that it would have been as successful if the interface was more complicated. Sure people would still have used it, but if it was harder to figure out or required more steps or had a 15 minute delay before it emailed you the answer, usage would have been far lower. Sorry if this all sounds like a cognitive load of shit. Hopefully I have communicated it clearly, but I suspect I may have exceeded the pain threshold a while ago.