Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the change isn't needed then change can't be better I'm curious... when you say 'change' is there a contextual limit to what counts as a change? That is to say, am I taking you too literally if I consider an A/B test a change? Or is there a pervasiveness of rollout that you think is necessary to consider something as a change? In either case, I wouldn't want to underestimate the value of studying reactions to a…
Valid point, but clearly even the smallest changes upset people. Re-arranging furniture is a change. Changing the colour or number of cushions on the sofa is a change. A-B testing won't reveal how many people reluctantly embrace the change, rolled their eyes and cursed your service as they completed the task. A-B testing is not all-knowing. It's suitable for colder functional changes, not things such as key separator…
{glances at this HN thread} Yes, clearly :)
I get that these changes are pain points for lots of people, and no one wants to be frustrated using the devices with which they have everyday, critical interactions.
> Who wants reliable, familiar interfaces and predictable functionality? Um.... try everyone!
Sure we want that... and we also want newer, better things. That's a tug of war between comfort and progress. If all we did were laser-focus on reliable, familiar interfaces and predictable functionality we never would have gotten the GUI or the mouse, right?
> A-B testing won't reveal how many people reluctantly embrace the change, rolled their eyes and cursed your service as they completed the task. A-B testing is not all-knowing. It's suitable for colder functional changes, not things such as key separators on a virtual keyboard.
I completely agree. My point was to home in on what you would characterize as change. Your response was very helpful to that end.
> None of this would be a problem if users are simply given choice and meticulous control over the changes and how or whether they're applied. Choice, control, options and user preferences - those should be the key features.
Yeah, it would be comforting if the gmail app let users toggle between "classic" and "material"... and it would also be contrary to that which is (seemingly) the driving force behind Material Design: defragmentation of UX in the Android space.
Choice is a double-edged sword. Several studies suggest that choice overload reduces happiness, increases stress, and leads to poorer decision-making.[1] On the other hand, one study found that choice overload caused all of those reactions but also positively affected their perceived quality of the brand.[2]
We HNers are a niche of tinkerers who enjoy poring through settings. As I understand it, our love of actively customizing and tweaking is not shared by the larger demographics.
Change bears risk, yes; but personally I would rather groan at questionable changes than ploddingly use an app that sacrifices the hope of exceptional change for the fear of bad change.
To each his own, I suppose.
-----
[1] For anyone interested in "choice overload":
* http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/bad-good-ch... which refers to a dead link that I think was moved to http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/ajp.127.3.27...
* http://www.fastcompany.com/3031364/the-future-of-work/why-ha...
* http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/03/01/select-all
* http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/your-money/the-trap-of-too...
* http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/research-too-many-choic...
* https://hbr.org/2006/06/more-isnt-always-better written by the author of a book that some of the other articles cite
[2] http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/when-customers-equate-c...