111–120 of 231 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>text links replaced by only graphical icons This is a terribly pernicious trend in all sorts of software, not just GMail. I really hope that the fad dies out soon, because it's preventing me form effectively using software that otherwise may have been great.
One of the first things I did when Gmail updated the design was to revert back to text links in the settings.
This is a weakness of ad-supported business models. When users are buying or subscribing to a product, you want them to love it as much as possible so that they will always buy more. Ad-supported models untie the relationship between UX and revenue. In an ad-supported model, you do need users to like the product enough to keep coming back, but small decreases in utility that generate more impressions could be great f…
Google is in the fortunate position of getting to do the best things for users for 99.5% of searches, it is the other .5% that they compromise on.
At times, they have tried to do the best thing for customers on searches like "best morgage refinance rate", but in the end, they cancel the experiments because it would crush their revenues, and all the other good they are doing:
http://www.seroundtable.com/mortgages-google-advisor-14813.h...
Google advisor was an amazing product that super beneficial to Google users, but the problem was it displaced $20/click ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>text links replaced by only graphical icons This is a terribly pernicious trend in all sorts of software, not just GMail. I really hope that the fad dies out soon, because it's preventing me form effectively using software that otherwise may have been great.
But it's a trend that is extremely helpful to non-English speakers.
Nice theory, but I think Dustin's conclusions are wrong. I got to use this alternative design on my second Facebook account that I used for app development, while my personal account didn't have it enabled. I really disliked like the new sidebar design. The concept was similar to what GMail has done lately, with text links replaced by only graphical icons. I found it really difficult to remember what each icon linked…
It wasn't stuck at just the icons, it let you expand to see words as well. It was much better in my opinion and I rarely had it at the collapsed state like his screenshot shows.
Click-to-reveal and hover-to-reveal require manual dexterity, a curiosity to see what's behind a link, and time to discover and parse the new visual information. Making these cognitive demands, particularly on sites where users relax, is going to reduce engagement.
Obat Rematik Dan Asam Urat
Penyembuhan penyakit rematik dan asam urat dengan obat herbal Jelly Gamat Gold G berkhasiat penuh tuntaskan secara maksimal
Obat,Rematik,Asam Urat,herbal,
> "We're blind." ... "Everything must be tested." And your solution is to do LESS TESTING? We don't know what we're doing, so let's cut back on the amount of data we can use to inform our decisions? > "We are slaves to the numbers. We don’t operate around innovation. We only optimize." I don't see why numbers should ever stop you from innovating. The difference between "innovating" and "optimizing" is just a differen…
The point is about design being held back or distorted by numbers - which are often a false prophesy when it comes to UX improvements. Nobody is suggesting that numbers don't matter, but if you can't decide on a border thickness of 1 or 2 pixels without numbers to tell you which to go with, you've lost your mojo. And that matters in the long term. When the aim is to increase length of time on the site or in the app,…
> "the numbers will "tell you" to make the interface more complicated, to hide the sign-out button"
Oh yes, I definitely understand that we misinterpret what the numbers mean. My point is that this isn't the numbers' fault - it's our fault for not understanding what we're measuring and what the numbers mean. Often additional tests can even help resolve the "what should we do" question.
We run tests all the time, but when we see something like, "pageviews are up x%" that's just a starting place. We begin to ask why and continue to develop a hypothesis and proof for it. It might be that users are confused so they start clicking around, or it could be because we've grabbed their attention and enticed them to learn more. Without the numbers we wouldn't even know where to start.
If Dustin's point is just to think critically about test numbers that seems to go without saying.
Zuck is brilliant at many things. But when someone says he's great at product, I raise an eyebrow. Seems to me they A/B tested their way to the top. FB today reminds me of Google 5 years ago. Their 41-shades-of-blue-testing days. But Google learned to listen to more right-brain arguments so maybe FB can too.
Facebook's biggest shortcoming is that it appears to have no ability to roll out a new product. I would be much more impressed if Facebook were able to crush Instagram, Whats App or SnapChat. It certainly has the resources but apparently not the know-how.