Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dangling by a Trivial Feature

prog21.dadgum.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: Dangling by a Trivial Feature

#51

Post by greggman »

Jare wrote: post #33
jthurman wrote: post #10

As someone who sells software online, the most horrifying thing about this scenario is that the user is very unlikely to ever tell me why they moved on, and so I'm terrifyingly unlikely to ever know that this trivial feature is missing. This literally keeps me awake at night. Statistic: it takes roughly 200 non-converting free trial downloads of my software to get one data point of feedback telling me why they decide…

This is why metrics and analytics have become superstars lately. Why hope for your users to tell you, when the software can do it by itself? Following the article's use case, the software could transmit the last dozen or so commands or actions performed by the user. In a simplistic scenario, how would you interpret it if 40% of your user's last commands are "Save"? Success, surely! How about "Undo"? The art and magic…

Metrics are great but they won't tell you the user passed on your software because you're missing width/height info on selection

Similarly it seems easy for metrics to mislead you into thinking the most important features for your app are the ones that get the most usage. It could easily be that some other features users would like far more but are currently hidden or poorly designed so that users are avoiding them

Re: Dangling by a Trivial Feature

#52

Post by greggman »

I'd argue this is why many open source project who's target audience is not developers are not nearly as good as their commercial counterparts.

When the software is made for artists there's a very different dynamic at work then when a a similar piece of software is created by engineers just to scratch an itch .

Re: Dangling by a Trivial Feature

#53

Post by temp8675309 »

mikecane wrote: post #45
furyofantares wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the two of you are mostly in agreement. I believe mikecane is talking about someone that believes their mental model of users' needs, desires, and expectations is complete, and is using the question as a way to shut down a feature, with the implication being "if the reason someone might want X is not immediately obvious to me, it must not exist." I don't think he was talking about someone that acknowledges th…

Yes. As an example, Jobs putting actual typefaces into the original Mac. Anyone used to the existing computing paradigm back then would have asked, "Why would a user want that?" Another infamous example is the marketeers at CompuServe thinking the CB Simulator was a bad idea -- and today we have something like it, called Twitter.

Why is Twitter a good idea? It's clearly an idea that's achieved traction with a userbase, but what is it about Twitter that makes it a "good" idea?

Re: Dangling by a Trivial Feature

#54

Post by mniejiki »

dreamdu5t wrote: post #17

This is why we should be using small, focused, interoperable modules instead of large monolithic frameworks and applications that try to do everything. A plugin architecture format shared by applications would be invaluable and solve this problem.

Until you lose users because implementing that plugin infrastructure slows down your program or prevents certain features from being written easily (either directly due to trade offs in having the infrastructure implemented or indirectly in not wanting to break compatibility with older plugins).

Also as Apple showed, a nice polished product sells and that final polish matters. It's a lot more difficult to do that when you need to deal with an unknown quality like plugins.

Re: Dangling by a Trivial Feature

#55

Post by b1daly »

What boggles my mind is when obvious usability problems persist over multiple versions of an application.

(A quick example: Apple's spreadsheet app Numbers has a behavior where the handle for moving a chart around on the workspace disappears if the chart is moved all the way to the left. It kind of docks the window, requiring an annoying work around to free it. There's no way anyone who uses it would not encounter this, but it's been that way for many years)

The problem space of user facing features is overall quite complex. A developer can neither understand the beginning user's experience, nor the heavy user (they usually don't have the time to use their own application as a worker would, IDEs being an exception.)

Just blindly adding features because a user requested isn't a solution for obvious reasons. I think a combination of user feedback, usability testing, quantitative analysis, along with creative problem solving by developers and product people is needed. Not to mention the nitpicky reality of there being an actual business case need for the feature.

Re: Dangling by a Trivial Feature

#56

Post by Jare »

greggman wrote: post #51
Jare wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why metrics and analytics have become superstars lately. Why hope for your users to tell you, when the software can do it by itself? Following the article's use case, the software could transmit the last dozen or so commands or actions performed by the user. In a simplistic scenario, how would you interpret it if 40% of your user's last commands are "Save"? Success, surely! How about "Undo"? The art and magic…

Metrics are great but they won't tell you the user passed on your software because you're missing width/height info on selection Similarly it seems easy for metrics to mislead you into thinking the most important features for your app are the ones that get the most usage. It could easily be that some other features users would like far more but are currently hidden or poorly designed so that users are avoiding them

Metrics can't answer every specific question directly. But if you look at the kind of activities your lost users performed last, and find a surprising amount of, for example, "Select", "Undo", "Select", etc you will know you have a problem area.

Re: Dangling by a Trivial Feature

#57

Post by brazzy »

krickle wrote: post #47
ricardobeat wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, who wants their drawing software to track their every movement?

This is hugely important. Any analytics had better be opt-in from a very visible and honest request dialog. Otherwise, quite frankly, it's unethical.

And then you lose users on that request dialog...

Re: Dangling by a Trivial Feature

#58

Post by josephlord »

krickle wrote: post #47
ricardobeat wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, who wants their drawing software to track their every movement?

This is hugely important. Any analytics had better be opt-in from a very visible and honest request dialog. Otherwise, quite frankly, it's unethical.

How do you feel about properly anonymous opt out logging?

My feeling is that anything personal including user content and searches should be opt-in but opt out is ok for monitoring feature usage that can't be linked to an individual. Obviously online/web apps reveal at least this anyway. Does context web/mobile app/PC app make a difference?

Re: Dangling by a Trivial Feature

#59

Post by mikecane »

temp8675309 wrote: post #53
mikecane wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. As an example, Jobs putting actual typefaces into the original Mac. Anyone used to the existing computing paradigm back then would have asked, "Why would a user want that?" Another infamous example is the marketeers at CompuServe thinking the CB Simulator was a bad idea -- and today we have something like it, called Twitter.

Why is Twitter a good idea? It's clearly an idea that's achieved traction with a userbase, but what is it about Twitter that makes it a "good" idea?

People like to chat with other people in real time. CompuServe's CB Simulator was a huge money draw for them (back then you paid per minute of connect-time).

Re: Dangling by a Trivial Feature

#60

Post by mikecane »

pcwalton wrote: post #35
mikecane wrote: post #16

It's very simple. In any environment, the person who asks, "Why would a user want to do that?" is the one who should be fired first.

Yet this environment created the iPad and propelled Apple to near-unprecedented success. It's not as simple as that—cutting features is often as important as adding features.

Yes, it can be tricky, but sometimes what gets cut is the stuff that professionals with a deeper understanding of their field require. Ask any pro photographer about iOS Photos not using metadata (I don't know if that's still the case, but it once was). The example in that post is a great one, it seems to me. Something that seems extraneous but really makes a real difference in the user's ability to get things properly done with a minimum of friction.
Post reply on HN