Monday, May 26, 2008
Futurize your enterprise in Denmark (10 years late)
Today in the daily paper Berlingske (in Danish) there was an article of how business is losing control over their communications. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find it online - but here's the "low-down": Kirsten Dinesen (whom I've never heard of before - but that's probably due to my own negligence) has written a book: Pull Society. From the article in the paper it seems that the book is basically a revisit of the eminent book Futurize you enterprise by David Siegel written 9 years ago. Back then it was very visionary, today it's reality. I don't really know what to say - why re-write a book (except of course to make some money)?
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Search engines gone beserk?
I wrote in an earlier post about Spacetime and how cool I thought it was. Well someone just upped them with a browser-based version of the same concept: SearchTime. Amazing how much easier it is to find the right result (but also slower - I think? - enter the debate of perceived speed). Another interesting user experience is Oamos. I'm not quite sure what to think of this from a user perspective. One thing is certain: it isn't very effective in getting me to what I need - but I do get an experience along the way.
Monday, May 05, 2008
The simplicity debate ...
There's a debate running around the UX community initiated by Don Norman (typical of him really - and quite refreshing) that our long stated goal that simple is better may not be quite true. Joshua Porter's Simplicity: The Ultimate Sophistication (a repsonse to the article by Don Norman) argues back and forth about Don Normans claims that Simplicity is Highly Overrated because "the truth is, simplicity does not sell." Joshua's piece is well argumented and he gets around the subject.
But what I'm missing in this is the price tag. Joshua Porter has an example where price is factored in, but it isn't really conclusive of anything. I would argue (as does Joshua Porter to some degree) that you cannot discuss an either or scenario. It is a combination of several factors (including price) that triggers a buying decision. Other factors are features and design (as well as support - which may be considered a feature).
Some of us actually want to live with less features if it means that products are easier to use. An example: Last year our family decided that we needed our own GPS navigation device (instead of borrowing from family and friends). As per usual when such buying decisons are to be made I'm the one doing it (as my wife really is not that fascinated by the wonders of modern technology). The specification ended up something like this (abbreviated list):
+European coverage (because it should be used for holidays)
+User friendly software
+Nice design of hardware
+Could have TMC (but not crucial)
-No camera
-No MP3 player
-No external antennas
Note that there were several things we didn't want: Camera (we have a perfectly well functioning digital camera that at any given time will take much better pictures than any old device designed for something else (GPS or mobile phone). Same goes for MP3 player. It was important that we could easily enter an adress and get an accurate result quickly. And that was basically what we wanted from it. My wife usually waits about 6 months when new gadgets enter our home before venturing into the user domain. And if the experience is crappy she never goes there again (and I'm left to do all the operations on said gadget). Apart from these features that should be there I had placed an upper limit on what we wanted to pay (maybe because I'm a cheapskate).
To conclude: We (in our family) often forego features hoping to ensure better adoption. And I don't think we're all that special (except of course that given my work field I may be more conscious of this). But then again as Don Norman says: A majority will probably choose features over simplicity
PS: I almost forgot - before we got our media center we had a NAD stereo which I do believe is famed for their no-nonsense approach to features (i.e. there really are none). Also my wrist watch which an IWC Portofino hand wound is completely devoid of features (apart from telling time, of course).
But what I'm missing in this is the price tag. Joshua Porter has an example where price is factored in, but it isn't really conclusive of anything. I would argue (as does Joshua Porter to some degree) that you cannot discuss an either or scenario. It is a combination of several factors (including price) that triggers a buying decision. Other factors are features and design (as well as support - which may be considered a feature).
Some of us actually want to live with less features if it means that products are easier to use. An example: Last year our family decided that we needed our own GPS navigation device (instead of borrowing from family and friends). As per usual when such buying decisons are to be made I'm the one doing it (as my wife really is not that fascinated by the wonders of modern technology). The specification ended up something like this (abbreviated list):
+European coverage (because it should be used for holidays)
+User friendly software
+Nice design of hardware
+Could have TMC (but not crucial)
-No camera
-No MP3 player
-No external antennas
Note that there were several things we didn't want: Camera (we have a perfectly well functioning digital camera that at any given time will take much better pictures than any old device designed for something else (GPS or mobile phone). Same goes for MP3 player. It was important that we could easily enter an adress and get an accurate result quickly. And that was basically what we wanted from it. My wife usually waits about 6 months when new gadgets enter our home before venturing into the user domain. And if the experience is crappy she never goes there again (and I'm left to do all the operations on said gadget). Apart from these features that should be there I had placed an upper limit on what we wanted to pay (maybe because I'm a cheapskate).
To conclude: We (in our family) often forego features hoping to ensure better adoption. And I don't think we're all that special (except of course that given my work field I may be more conscious of this). But then again as Don Norman says: A majority will probably choose features over simplicity
PS: I almost forgot - before we got our media center we had a NAD stereo which I do believe is famed for their no-nonsense approach to features (i.e. there really are none). Also my wrist watch which an IWC Portofino hand wound is completely devoid of features (apart from telling time, of course).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
