4 ms·

80% of users use only 20% of software features - but they don't all use the same 20% (according to Linus, anyway).

by 10ren 17y ago

sachinag 17y ago
And Microsoft, Oracle, Adobe, and pretty much any maker of any complex app. Hell, I bet that's even true for Basecamp.
snprbob86 17y ago
As you state, there is a lot of evidence that everybody uses a different 20% of the features. However, I think that primary applies to horizontal apps such as operating systems and core office productivity suites. I recall reading on Jensen Harris' Office 2007 new UI blog that they tried their damnedest to remove features, but no one could come up with any reasonable way to pick any features to cut other than a select few which were practically unused by anyone. They had extensive usage data to work with. Meanwhile, the feature-poor Windows Live Writer has taken off like a rocket for bloggers. That may be true for something like Excel, Word, Linux, etc, but I think that wouldn't be as true for vertical applications. Sometimes, I wonder if would be better off turning the core word processing components into a library and releasing verticals for different types of writers. Professional writers, for instance, probably don't need any formatting tools other than headings. Blog writers should only use things that can be represented well by typical HTML blog engines. Etc. I think this is a case where the advice that is right for startups (typically verticals) is not right for the big guys. As a little guy, I'm betting on nailing 20% of the features and scoring 18% of what people want :-)
- 10ren 17y ago
  Your library point is technically appealing, but economically it costs Microsoft nothing to include everything (since the code's already written), and adds some value for some people, helping to support a higher price. In fact, Microsoft tries to go even further the opposite way, by grouping Word with other software in Office. Instead of separating an application into libraries, they combine applications. But you can simulate the absence of features by hiding them. In terms of usability, Word defaults to hiding menu items, to remove the clutter of rarely used items. Many people don't like it, and turn it on, just in case they need something, but the fact that MS has chosen to make it the default maybe indicates that it's been favourable in their user trials (though they also choose clippy). The same thing could be done for vertical specialization. Finally, I agree with you about startup strategy. My reasoning is that you have limited time and resources for implementing and polishing features, so you'd better focus on what's really important. There's that marketing concept that if you really nail it for some specific niche, you'll be successful with them ("a small number of users really love you"). That's much better than making it almost acceptable for a huge number of people. I think that if you can later add other features that also have some value, you should. 37signals disagrees, saying you should keep the feature set tiny and unbloated (though they have added whole other separate products instead), But maybe there can be a natural life-cycle for vertical applications that grow and generalize into a horizontal application, as capabilities are (sensibly) added, as in "Text editors evolve until they can read mail. Those that can't will be replaced by those that can"

80% of users use only 20% of software features - but they don't all use the same 20% (according to Linus, anyway).

by 10ren 17y ago

80% of users use only 20% of software features - but they don't all use the same 20% (according to Linus, anyway).

sachinag 17y ago

And Microsoft, Oracle, Adobe, and pretty much any maker of any complex app. Hell, I bet that's even true for Basecamp.

snprbob86 17y ago

As you state, there is a lot of evidence that everybody uses a different 20% of the features. However, I think that primary applies to horizontal apps such as operating systems and core office productivity suites. I recall reading on Jensen Harris' Office 2007 new UI blog that they tried their damnedest to remove features, but no one could come up with any reasonable way to pick any features to cut other than a select few which were practically unused by anyone. They had extensive usage data to work with. Meanwhile, the feature-poor Windows Live Writer has taken off like a rocket for bloggers. That may be true for something like Excel, Word, Linux, etc, but I think that wouldn't be as true for vertical applications. Sometimes, I wonder if would be better off turning the core word processing components into a library and releasing verticals for different types of writers. Professional writers, for instance, probably don't need any formatting tools other than headings. Blog writers should only use things that can be represented well by typical HTML blog engines. Etc. I think this is a case where the advice that is right for startups (typically verticals) is not right for the big guys. As a little guy, I'm betting on nailing 20% of the features and scoring 18% of what people want :-)

10ren 17y ago
Your library point is technically appealing, but economically it costs Microsoft nothing to include everything (since the code's already written), and adds some value for some people, helping to support a higher price. In fact, Microsoft tries to go even further the opposite way, by grouping Word with other software in Office. Instead of separating an application into libraries, they combine applications. But you can simulate the absence of features by hiding them. In terms of usability, Word defaults to hiding menu items, to remove the clutter of rarely used items. Many people don't like it, and turn it on, just in case they need something, but the fact that MS has chosen to make it the default maybe indicates that it's been favourable in their user trials (though they also choose clippy). The same thing could be done for vertical specialization. Finally, I agree with you about startup strategy. My reasoning is that you have limited time and resources for implementing and polishing features, so you'd better focus on what's really important. There's that marketing concept that if you really nail it for some specific niche, you'll be successful with them ("a small number of users really love you"). That's much better than making it almost acceptable for a huge number of people. I think that if you can later add other features that also have some value, you should. 37signals disagrees, saying you should keep the feature set tiny and unbloated (though they have added whole other separate products instead), But maybe there can be a natural life-cycle for vertical applications that grow and generalize into a horizontal application, as capabilities are (sensibly) added, as in "Text editors evolve until they can read mail. Those that can't will be replaced by those that can"