3 ms·

Creating good UX is certainly an iterative process, but the millions-and-years claim is a bit dramatic. It is definitely possible to 'over-spend' on UX, for exa

Creating good UX is certainly an iterative process, but the millions-and-years claim is a bit dramatic. It is definitely possible to 'over-spend' on UX, for example Google Maps was nearly perfect 3 years ago, but is increasingly unusable because "we did nothing, everything is already awesome" doesn't look good on a progress report. The trick is achieving a happy balance of features and usability while not wasting time/money/goodwill in the endless pursuit of an idealized global optimum.

api 12y ago
Sure, the UX nail can certainly be counter-sunk. But overall I think my estimates are pretty close. The thing that makes UX really hard compared with features and capabilities is that there's no straightforwardly "right" answer that can be discerned Platonically in isolation. UX is a matter of taste and people, not algorithms and code. It's not something that responds to the kinds of Moore's Law efficiency gains that can be achieved in the CS realm -- it requires the irreducibly expensive commodity of human time and effort. The fact that this kind of time and effort investment is irreducibly expensive is why huge mega-corporations like Apple and Google have such an intrinsic advantage in this department. It's easy to understand why they dominate the mobile space -- when you're interacting with a mobile device, your appetite for poor UX is quite a bit lower than when you're sitting at a desktop.
- jallmann 12y ago
  > huge mega-corporations like Apple and Google have such an intrinsic advantage They really don't. All it takes is one designer with good taste, or a developer frustrated with the status quo. Sure, big companies have the resources to do a lot of in-house testing and iteration, but that does not suddenly create taste. > easy to understand why they dominate the mobile space The reason for the current duopoly in mobile OSes has less to do with pure UX, and more to do with successful jockeying for market position across a multitude of factors (yes, including UX). WebOS? Windows Phone? Both arguably had/have superior UX, but still lost in the market. Anyway, the OS vendor is irrelevant in this context, notwithstanding app investment due to market position. One can have horrible app UX on iOS, or terrific app UX on Android -- and Android is really not that great overall, especially with older and/or lower-end devices. Moreover, there are plenty of successful third-party apps, regardless of platform, most of which haven't invested millions and years into UX.
  - paulhebert 12y ago
    For individual apps and sites, you're right. Individuals with good taste can rival and sometimes outperform the larger companies. However, large companies like Apple can deliver an entire suite of software to users that has high quality, consistent UX. This means consumers who aren't used to technology only have to learn a lot of things once. On the other hand, people who've grown up using Apple products already have an idea how to use new ones. Individuals and small organizations can create some amazing things but large corporations definitely have some intrinsic advantages, especially when it comes to larger projects.

api 12y ago

Sure, the UX nail can certainly be counter-sunk. But overall I think my estimates are pretty close. The thing that makes UX really hard compared with features and capabilities is that there's no straightforwardly "right" answer that can be discerned Platonically in isolation. UX is a matter of taste and people, not algorithms and code. It's not something that responds to the kinds of Moore's Law efficiency gains that can be achieved in the CS realm -- it requires the irreducibly expensive commodity of human time and effort. The fact that this kind of time and effort investment is irreducibly expensive is why huge mega-corporations like Apple and Google have such an intrinsic advantage in this department. It's easy to understand why they dominate the mobile space -- when you're interacting with a mobile device, your appetite for poor UX is quite a bit lower than when you're sitting at a desktop.

jallmann 12y ago
> huge mega-corporations like Apple and Google have such an intrinsic advantage They really don't. All it takes is one designer with good taste, or a developer frustrated with the status quo. Sure, big companies have the resources to do a lot of in-house testing and iteration, but that does not suddenly create taste. > easy to understand why they dominate the mobile space The reason for the current duopoly in mobile OSes has less to do with pure UX, and more to do with successful jockeying for market position across a multitude of factors (yes, including UX). WebOS? Windows Phone? Both arguably had/have superior UX, but still lost in the market. Anyway, the OS vendor is irrelevant in this context, notwithstanding app investment due to market position. One can have horrible app UX on iOS, or terrific app UX on Android -- and Android is really not that great overall, especially with older and/or lower-end devices. Moreover, there are plenty of successful third-party apps, regardless of platform, most of which haven't invested millions and years into UX.
- paulhebert 12y ago
  For individual apps and sites, you're right. Individuals with good taste can rival and sometimes outperform the larger companies. However, large companies like Apple can deliver an entire suite of software to users that has high quality, consistent UX. This means consumers who aren't used to technology only have to learn a lot of things once. On the other hand, people who've grown up using Apple products already have an idea how to use new ones. Individuals and small organizations can create some amazing things but large corporations definitely have some intrinsic advantages, especially when it comes to larger projects.