5 ms·

I actually tried Kera for our product (https://codeable.io https://codeable.io) and even had a Skype conversation with one of the founders, but I knew having a

by tzaman 14y ago

I actually tried Kera for our product (https://codeable.io https://codeable.io) and even had a Skype conversation with one of the founders, but I knew having a walkthrough guide (their product) was just a band-aid for poor UX, and as such, just a temporary solution, not really worth paying for in the long term, especially when it was easy to use one of the open source solutions and adapt them (like Zurb Joyride) to our needs. Nevertheless I wish the Kera team good luck on their next venture!

mikeknoop 14y ago
I tend to agree walkthroughs seem like band-aids. Can you justify your position against them more concretely? (more than just a "feeling")?
- tzaman 14y ago
  Sure - their core concept was adding a walkthrough with a voice over. Since none of our team was native english speaker, we didn't feel confident enough in having our voices in the walkthrough. This means we'd have to hire someone at http://voicebunny.com http://voicebunny.com - which would take time. Then I would need to slice the voiceover and configure Kera to trigger properly, which would take even more time. So we opted for a better solution: we hired a UX architect (or whatever the title is) from http://dlabs.si/ http://dlabs.si/ - He performed live user testing and analysis with us and delivered high fidelity wireframes, which resulted in understandable application flow, without the need for a walkthrough (or me spending time learning Kera). Granted, it wasn't free, but it was well worth the money, and it was one-off payment, as opposed to Kera's subscription model.
  - lshemesh 14y ago
    While I agree with you that walkthroughs/tutorials/tours, or whatever you want to call them, are not the end goal of a particular user design, the idea that you could create a design that is so elegant and perfect that it doesn't require any kind of instruction is absurd. Sure not all sites need it, but the option is out there for people who don't have the ability to hire a UX expert, and whose sites change frequently. I was literally just on Facebook and was taken through at least three different tutorials. IF you can hire a ux person to make your site not need a tutorial, then all the power to you. For the record, I founded Tutorialize (https://tutorialize.me https://tutorialize.me), and I'm constantly watching this market landscape change. I've met multiple people who knew guys from Kera.io, and though I didn't get to meet them, they definitely seemed like cool dudes. I'm sure the core team with come back with something great soon enough. Peace!
    - tzaman 14y ago
      I'm not saying workflows don't require instructions, quite the opposite. I am saying though, that these instructions don't need to be hand-holding tours, they can be subtle hints in the workflow, in terms of proper copy, icons, labels, etc. And as I discovered with the UX guy, it's not that difficult to perform user testing on your own, just sit down with clients and see them complete a certain task while thinking out loud along the way. It works wonders. That being said, I'm by no means trying to discredit what you're trying to do - there certainly are use cases for products like Kera, otherwise you guys wouldn't work on it.
      - maxcameron 14y ago
        I love this thread - it really encapsulates the debate around the product that was ever-present for us. Turns out it was fairly controversial... One thing is for sure though - the problem of "user onboarding" and conversion exists, and people are actively trying to solve it. Hopefully the folks from iridize, tutorialize.me, walkme, taurus, etc etc will be able to take up the reigns and build a scalable business around it.
      - lshemesh 14y ago
        Totally with you! All too often I hear the blanket statement thrown around that you should never use a tutorial and instead focus your energy and time in creating a really elegant UI. We live in a world where things have to happen quickly, where reinventing the wheel is startup failure 101, where you can get a full web app running in under 10 minutes. Build the tutorial, and then figure out your UI when you have time and money. Not true for all cases, of course.
smoyer 14y ago
I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum ... I'd never heard of Kera and after reading the obituary, I wanted to know what it was. Unfortunately, they've simultaneously put a "black ribbon" on the project's web page, making it impossible to navigate to any meaningful description. Would someone mind "clueing me in"?
- dclowd9901 14y ago
  It sounds like Kera was some kind of "walkthrough" service that provided a high fidelity explanation of navigating and using an app (think: in-product tour). OP has a point when he says the product was fundamentally flawed in that it supported badly designed products.
- mnicole 14y ago
  I tried it out quite a few months ago, so I am only speaking to the initial version, but you created a timeline of JS events (tooltips, other tutorial/intro elements) with synced voiceovers (if you wanted) and it would show up on the user's end with a video player-esque UI so they could navigate the experience. The front-end was clean & simple, and I really liked it in theory (I disagree with the notion that any app that needs a walkthrough is broken by design), but the version I tried's backend wasn't created for people who couldn't sink some time into the JS and would have benefitted greatly from a more user-friendly approach.

by tzaman 14y ago

mikeknoop 14y ago

I tend to agree walkthroughs seem like band-aids. Can you justify your position against them more concretely? (more than just a "feeling")?

tzaman 14y ago
Sure - their core concept was adding a walkthrough with a voice over. Since none of our team was native english speaker, we didn't feel confident enough in having our voices in the walkthrough. This means we'd have to hire someone at http://voicebunny.com http://voicebunny.com - which would take time. Then I would need to slice the voiceover and configure Kera to trigger properly, which would take even more time. So we opted for a better solution: we hired a UX architect (or whatever the title is) from http://dlabs.si/ http://dlabs.si/ - He performed live user testing and analysis with us and delivered high fidelity wireframes, which resulted in understandable application flow, without the need for a walkthrough (or me spending time learning Kera). Granted, it wasn't free, but it was well worth the money, and it was one-off payment, as opposed to Kera's subscription model.
- lshemesh 14y ago
  While I agree with you that walkthroughs/tutorials/tours, or whatever you want to call them, are not the end goal of a particular user design, the idea that you could create a design that is so elegant and perfect that it doesn't require any kind of instruction is absurd. Sure not all sites need it, but the option is out there for people who don't have the ability to hire a UX expert, and whose sites change frequently. I was literally just on Facebook and was taken through at least three different tutorials. IF you can hire a ux person to make your site not need a tutorial, then all the power to you. For the record, I founded Tutorialize (https://tutorialize.me https://tutorialize.me), and I'm constantly watching this market landscape change. I've met multiple people who knew guys from Kera.io, and though I didn't get to meet them, they definitely seemed like cool dudes. I'm sure the core team with come back with something great soon enough. Peace!
  - tzaman 14y ago
    I'm not saying workflows don't require instructions, quite the opposite. I am saying though, that these instructions don't need to be hand-holding tours, they can be subtle hints in the workflow, in terms of proper copy, icons, labels, etc. And as I discovered with the UX guy, it's not that difficult to perform user testing on your own, just sit down with clients and see them complete a certain task while thinking out loud along the way. It works wonders. That being said, I'm by no means trying to discredit what you're trying to do - there certainly are use cases for products like Kera, otherwise you guys wouldn't work on it.
    - maxcameron 14y ago
      I love this thread - it really encapsulates the debate around the product that was ever-present for us. Turns out it was fairly controversial... One thing is for sure though - the problem of "user onboarding" and conversion exists, and people are actively trying to solve it. Hopefully the folks from iridize, tutorialize.me, walkme, taurus, etc etc will be able to take up the reigns and build a scalable business around it.
    - lshemesh 14y ago
      Totally with you! All too often I hear the blanket statement thrown around that you should never use a tutorial and instead focus your energy and time in creating a really elegant UI. We live in a world where things have to happen quickly, where reinventing the wheel is startup failure 101, where you can get a full web app running in under 10 minutes. Build the tutorial, and then figure out your UI when you have time and money. Not true for all cases, of course.

smoyer 14y ago

I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum ... I'd never heard of Kera and after reading the obituary, I wanted to know what it was. Unfortunately, they've simultaneously put a "black ribbon" on the project's web page, making it impossible to navigate to any meaningful description. Would someone mind "clueing me in"?

dclowd9901 14y ago
It sounds like Kera was some kind of "walkthrough" service that provided a high fidelity explanation of navigating and using an app (think: in-product tour). OP has a point when he says the product was fundamentally flawed in that it supported badly designed products.
mnicole 14y ago
I tried it out quite a few months ago, so I am only speaking to the initial version, but you created a timeline of JS events (tooltips, other tutorial/intro elements) with synced voiceovers (if you wanted) and it would show up on the user's end with a video player-esque UI so they could navigate the experience. The front-end was clean & simple, and I really liked it in theory (I disagree with the notion that any app that needs a walkthrough is broken by design), but the version I tried's backend wasn't created for people who couldn't sink some time into the JS and would have benefitted greatly from a more user-friendly approach.