Users don't care about your app's complexity
12 comments
I think the goal is to make it easy to use without sacrificing what makes it useful.
The most effective way I see this done is to make the basic feature or features every easy to pick up and use, to get people in the door and avoid those day 1 learning curve issues. But for those who want to go deep, let them go down the rabbit hole.
Obsidian and Apple Notes both do this pretty well. At their core, a user can open them up and start writing and creating new notes within a a minute of first use. However, both have a lot more functionality buried under the hood for those who want to do more, so people don’t feel limited by the apparent simplicity. VS Code would fall into this bucket as well.
Compare this Notepad from Windows XP or orgmode. With Notepad, you can open it and write, but that’s it. If the user wants anything more, sorry, to find something else. Orgmode has the opposite problem of a high learning curve, step one, learn emacs… you just almost everyone outside of HN.
With a simple app, it’s easy to quickly see that it can’t fit your needs. With a complex app, maybe it takes longer, but it’s usually someone quitting over frustration, or not being able to get past the learning curve just to handle the basics.
The most effective way I see this done is to make the basic feature or features every easy to pick up and use, to get people in the door and avoid those day 1 learning curve issues. But for those who want to go deep, let them go down the rabbit hole.
Obsidian and Apple Notes both do this pretty well. At their core, a user can open them up and start writing and creating new notes within a a minute of first use. However, both have a lot more functionality buried under the hood for those who want to do more, so people don’t feel limited by the apparent simplicity. VS Code would fall into this bucket as well.
Compare this Notepad from Windows XP or orgmode. With Notepad, you can open it and write, but that’s it. If the user wants anything more, sorry, to find something else. Orgmode has the opposite problem of a high learning curve, step one, learn emacs… you just almost everyone outside of HN.
With a simple app, it’s easy to quickly see that it can’t fit your needs. With a complex app, maybe it takes longer, but it’s usually someone quitting over frustration, or not being able to get past the learning curve just to handle the basics.
I like the Obsidian example. Getting started is easy, maybe what we need is a neat way to tuck away complexity and let advanced users choose when to use it.
All about mental models, and cognitive biases.
"Understanding the logic behind these biases allows us to confront, moderate, and potentially use them positively. This directory takes a swift dive into various cognitive biases affecting our lives and work, aiming to help us design with greater awareness."
https://1984.design/psychology-of-design/
"Understanding the logic behind these biases allows us to confront, moderate, and potentially use them positively. This directory takes a swift dive into various cognitive biases affecting our lives and work, aiming to help us design with greater awareness."
https://1984.design/psychology-of-design/
This is really good, esp for someone without a design background like me.
I’m really not sure I follow this argument.
A lot of software has friction to get to the value. This is often because of constraints not choice.
To give a concrete example of this, in my company we had users upload files for analysis. To get the export for the file, it took many steps. Not hard, but a lot to get done.
We switched it to an integration and now it’s 3 clicks. We’ve gone from 10% of users onboarding to 100%.
It doesn’t mean we get people to stay, but the barrier to understanding if our tool provides value to them has completely disappeared.
I’m very curious though, what value did you strip away when trying to make your product easier to use?
A lot of software has friction to get to the value. This is often because of constraints not choice.
To give a concrete example of this, in my company we had users upload files for analysis. To get the export for the file, it took many steps. Not hard, but a lot to get done.
We switched it to an integration and now it’s 3 clicks. We’ve gone from 10% of users onboarding to 100%.
It doesn’t mean we get people to stay, but the barrier to understanding if our tool provides value to them has completely disappeared.
I’m very curious though, what value did you strip away when trying to make your product easier to use?
They hate but still use it. Is a more accurate statement.
Often because of lack of better alternatives or out of inertia.
Majority of UX of software products we use every day range from awful (ad platforms for example) to mediocre (WhatsApp). But we don’t know any better.
Often because of lack of better alternatives or out of inertia.
Majority of UX of software products we use every day range from awful (ad platforms for example) to mediocre (WhatsApp). But we don’t know any better.
> complex
I think the word you need is complicated.
I think the word you need is complicated.
And rewarding. I guess the issue is, how broad is the problem we are trying to solve? Until there's a narrow, very narrow market fit, products will start or even evolve into sophisticated nightmares.
I would add: complicated with regards to a genuine problem.
[deleted]
I have worked on making software easy for users, and often I got them to see the app has no value much faster because by stripping complexity, I lost the tiny functionalities that made it useful for them.