|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: October 24, 2002 IAnything Goes (Digital Web Magazine) -- "What is good for the user, however, is not always good for the business. Users were happy, but businesses failed." (Comments: Examples of users being happy but businesses failing?)
Reader Comments...
Examples: Napster, many e-commerce dotcoms who sold at massive discounts, several small Linux distributions, Betamax. Posted by: Fall Guy on October 24, 2002 08:20 AM
...and those examples support the notion that overly close attention to user needs squeezed out business prerogatives how, precisely? Jeff's out on a limb here, logically, and to be honest I'm out there sawing away at it. As I've pointed out at iaslash and elsewhere, I can't think of a single instance in which a company allocated resources to usability or sound user-centric information architecture, the use of which resources fatally undermined that venture. Meanwhile, of course, we can each count dozens of clients who have chosen to prioritize their (perceived!)needs over that of the user. Sorry, Jeff, but I simply cannot agree, and in fact I think the piece has dangerous potential for misuse. Posted by: Adam Greenfield on October 24, 2002 09:54 AM
I tend to agree that Jeff's article sends shudders down my spine from a purist IA/user experience perspective, but I do think there is a validity to what he's written if you look at it from a client perspective. I've been on client calls and sales presentations related to UE opportunities in which the client 'gets' the importance for ease of use, seamlessness, intuitive organization, etc. That doesn't change the fact that the reason they're even considering the project in this day and age is, nine times out of ten, based upon business drivers that relate to an increase in revenue. What I gleaned from Jeff's article was that we can't come at this type of situation from the left (strictly based upon usability/IA factors) or the right (strictly based upon business drivers). Instead, taking a centrist approach will most likely result in a solution in which both sides, user and business, are satisfied. Posted by: Shane on October 24, 2002 01:27 PM
While I agree it's hard to find examples of where taking a user-centered design strategy caused a venture to fail, I think he's right tackling a rather dangerous blindspot in our communities of practice -- the it's _all_ about the user. It's an easy to trap to fall into, because as Adam points out, we're usually trying to counteract customer/user experience strategies based on business and/or technological forces with nary a customer or user in sight. But there's a big different between being an advocate and being a zealot. Too often, I've seen people become the latter, as they tune out the other needs that have to be balanced. It's reflected in the unfortunate choice of "user _centered_ design" as a name for what we do. I much prefer "user-focused design," a subtle -- potentially too subtle -- but important difference. It's the figuring out the relative focus that's inevitably the most difficult dealing with the big picture and those who do it well are more likely to be valued by business decision makers than people who just focus on the tactical issues. Posted by: George Olsen on October 24, 2002 02:51 PM
I dunno, George. I would hate to see the term "user centered design" get demonized. It is a good description because it doesn't mean that you put all your eggs in the user's basket, it just means that they are at the center of design considerations. Instead of thinking "How will the CEO like this drop-down" you think "How will User X like this drop-down?" and things like that. It helps keep the compass pointed in the right direction. "User Focused Design", on the other hand, connotes more of an all-eggs-in-one-basket feel to me. I'm not focused only on the user. I have to take into account the needs and goals of the business, the long-term strategy, a pleasing design that helps to brand the company or product, and things like cost, availability, etc. The big difference is that I am thinking of these things along with how they can include the user. Or am I misunderstanding what you meant by User Focused? Posted by: Lydia on October 24, 2002 08:33 PM
But there's a big different between being an advocate and being a zealot (George Olsen quoted from above) Unfortunaltely, it's hard to distinguish the advocates from the zealots. Posted by: Ron Zeno on October 24, 2002 08:42 PM
OK, I won't reveal any corporate secrets from where I used to work (and the contents of this post are drawn both on real-life experience as well as a lot of business reading -- no, I don't just run the World's Best Samuel Johnson Web Site, but the fact is that some websites need ad exposures and conversions from those exposures in order to make the web show some revenue. I doubt very much that any company is blind to the opportunities of cost reductions which the web represents, but when a corporation is looking to make more money, some times there is an additional burden put on the web site to create revenue. Creating revenue on the web site makes the effort look even more attractive. Now, more ad exposures usually means making people see more pages. And the most straightforward navigation and architecture inhibits that. That's a matter of fact. One could argue that repeat visits due to higher satisfaction compensates for that, but I've never seen figures either way. Posted by: Frank on October 24, 2002 08:46 PM
Frank, that's exactly the instantiation I pointed out when discussing this over at Semantic - "is that New York Times article *really* eight HTML pages long, or did they push me through that many clicks 'cause each time I do it counts as an ad impression?" I think we all know the answer, and as anyone who's actually worked in the field knows, there are *always* tradeoffs like this. The quality of my experience is marginally- to significantly decremented because there are business-model prerogratives that come first. In this case, I can live with it: it's the New York Times, after all. And quality/desirability of content is definitely a factor in making the call - as Lydia points out, a circumstance where the user is properly central to such decisions, but not to the exclusion of other valid viewpoints and prerogatives. Posted by: Adam Greenfield on October 24, 2002 09:06 PM
Read Paco Underhill's book on shopping, and you'll realise that there are many anti-user practices which are employed to ensure business success. Remove those practices, (ie. be pro-user) and you therefore lower the viability of the business, and given an environment of very tight margins and fierce competition and this pro-user business will go bust. Could it be that we've not seen many outright examples is because most businesses are smart enough to fix their "error" before it's too late? Posted by: Eric Scheid on October 24, 2002 09:09 PM
Warning: Cynicism Kicking In How about 'Profit Centered Design', or 'Cost Reduction Design' ? At least it would be more honest in many instances (at least it would in the places I work). A system is proposed that would save the company some money. But they want to dress it up, so that it doesn't sound like they're just money grubbing. They've probably got a mission statement that talks about their 'commitment to employees quality of life, customers never ending happiness... blah blah blah'. So to make it more palatable, they employ some Usability, UCD, Fun Engineer, IA, HCI person to contribute to the effort. However, the last thing they want is for the 'user advocate' to actually question the basis of any fundamental design decisions, so they make sure that they come in too late to change that situation. The professional does their work, the system gets an 'ethical sheen' and everyone is happy. Aren't they? Posted by: Mac on October 25, 2002 06:18 AM
Warning: Cynicism and Sarcasm How about: (Apologies for posting before I'm fully awake...) Posted by: Ron Zeno on October 25, 2002 10:30 AM
"Profit Centered Design" I like it. Seriously. I really like it. First, let's assume that we are talking about corporate web sites. Next, let's assume that the corporations have the desire and need to make money. With that as the background, consider the power of using Profit Centered Design. Every company cares about money. Every person in the company, like it or not, should care (must care?) about making money. It is truly a common goal. Common goals are Good Things. Many of us have seen what happens when one group drives the web site. A marketing-driven web site might ignore usability. A usability-driven web site might ignore business issues. A CEO-driven web site might ignore quality. And so on. However, a Profit Centered Design would force all parties to look at what will benefit the company. If usability improves the site and increases profit, rock on. If marketing fluff grabs eyeballs and increases profit, that's great. The trick is to design around profits, not around users. I'm a heretic? Not so fast. I'm not saying that we ignore users. Quite the opposite in fact. If focusing on users improves the bottom line, then it is known to be the right thing. Move forward; employ usability. Everyone wins. The common goal...profit. If users suffer, well, maybe that is fine. No, strike that. It is fine. These corporate web sites aren't there to be nice. They are there to make a profit. If we can be nice to users along the way, that's great. However, if we have to add friction to a web site to increase profits, that's fine. That's appropriate. Mac, I think you made a real discovery. Design for Profit. If what folks do doesn't add to the bottom line, then it is wrong. We should all start thinking about success as profit as it is tied to design. For every change made, we should ask, will this add to the bottom line? If the change doesn't help the company, it is failure. Posted by: John S. Rhodes on October 25, 2002 10:51 AM
Examples of users being happy but businesses failing Any brothel ever shut down by the pigs. Posted by: on October 25, 2002 10:57 AM
...not so happy if they catch something nasty! Posted by: Annoying Puff Cat on October 25, 2002 11:28 AM
I like Jeff's point about Goals and ROI. I think people feel they need to prove ROI because usability is perceived as a "throw-away" layer of site design. If we can remove that pressure and instead focus on meeting business goals with usability, I think the people that fund the paychecks will be happier. As an example: We need to get more people to complete registration, because we run advertising in our newsletter, and more numbers will get more advertisers. Usability says that if we ask for credit card information at the time of purchase rather than during registration, we won't scare as many people away from registering. So, we do that and - bingo! - registrations increase over the previous month's numbers. We met a goal, and "proved" the ROI. Posted by: Lydia on October 25, 2002 03:16 PM
Actually, Lydia you understood my sense of having an awareness of the multitude of issues perfectly -- although just to be clear, in the role of a UX person, I'd expect someone to give priority the user needs. (Likewise, I'd expect the business people and the technologist to advocate their positions, but keep in mind the users needs -- but it'll be a while before that happens, since neither group has typically been trained to take user needs seriously.) It's not really about "will the CEO like this drop-down" but more along the lines of "will adding this drop-down double the production costs?" or "by putting items into a drop-down am I burying something that's critical to branding?" This doesn't mean you avoid advocating using the drop-down if that's what makes sense, but it does mean realizing that user needs get balanced against other concerns. I don't consider it "putting all-eggs-in-one-basket," I consider it making the shift from thinking tactically to thinking strategically. Just as after a few years in the working world graphic designers come to realize they're doing _commercial art_ (as it was once called), we need to realize that we're in the same situation. If you're doing work on commercial sites, then achieving business goals is part of the reality picture. And just like graphic designers need to balance their need to be expresive with business needs, we need to balance our need to do good for users with business goals. (BTW, I think "business goals" is a better way to think of things than strictly "profits," since there are lots of business goals that aren't immediately linked to profits -- although of course profits are the ultimate aim. For example, for the site I'm working on now, the main aims are improved customer service, which in turn provides a competitive advantage, as well as reduced costs by providing online account statements rather than mailing paper statements. Clearly the latter goal is pretty quantifiable toward the bottom line. But customer service is more subjective and it's only one in a number of factors contibuting to the firm's overall competitive advantage. Yet it's effect on the bottom line is real even if it's intangible.) I'm not sure everything we do need to contribute to the bottom line -- and given the intangibility of a lot of what we do, that leads to difficulty in justifying our value -- but we certainly should avoid doing things that hurt the business goals of the folks signing our paychecks. Still this doesn't mean blinding rolling over and accepting these business goals as given. Lots of company give lip-service to listening to their customers, part of our job is getting them to actually do so -- which needless to say can be an eye-opening experience for most companies and may change their business strategies and goals. Posted by: George Olsen on October 25, 2002 05:35 PM
George: unfortunately, if efforts have intangible benefits and no clear tangible benefits, but compete for funding against efforts with tangible efforts, they don't have much chance of getting funding these days. It may take creativity to uncover the tangible benefits, but the effort will help in obtaining the funding. Posted by: Frank on October 26, 2002 12:34 PM
I agree intangibles are a more difficult sell, especially these days, but they are a recognized part of the balance sheet. A restaurant with tasty food, polite service, pleasant atmoshere and a good location will be valued more than one that lacks these -- even if their other financials are identical. The difficulty of course is tying specific factors to the bottom line. As you said, it requires creativity and sometimes reframing the question away from ROI (which is actually a specific financial calculation) to the larger question of "creating value" which can be demostrated in a wider range of ways. Posted by: George Olsen on October 28, 2002 05:32 PM
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |