This won't happen among most companies, but I'd love to see that become a common practice with at least some high-level developers.
There's so many pain points in many customer service organizations that are easily solvable if a developer understood the frustration and waste with many customer service tasks. Nothing motivates more than having to do some annoying manual billing process that's error prone or looking up customer information by logging into 5 different systems.
Alas, Google has no customer service, so their developers shall be placed in the void until morale improves.
It was very eye opening.
That doesn't necessarily mean that the UX people were wrong though. Even if their changes made the experienced people slightly slower, it could be worth it if it significantly sped up onboarding.
Why optimize for the one-time thing at the expense of the everyday use?
Also, everybody goes through onboarding, and initial impressions have a lot of power. It's pretty easy to create a system that everyone hates just because it's a little difficult during onboarding. Social reinforcement can be stronger than reality.
(Personally, I still lean towards optimizing for experienced use, if you can do it without sacrificing the onboarding experience too much. Hotkeys that the new employee never needs to see or know about are a typical example, though I prefer a smoother ramp by mentioning the key on applicable menu items. The newbie can ignore it, the intermediate user can learn from it, the experienced user can ignore the menu.)
I'm not necessarily endorsing this perspective, and it depends on the specifics, but there are cases where this makes business sense. If you take a task that requires an expensive expert and make it something that an unskilled worker can do then you you can lower overall labor costs even if each user is less efficient in the new system.
https://breakingpoint.substack.com/p/your-three-kinds-of-cus...
Just curious. Many applications have some kind of "Settings" or "Preferences" section with some kind of App UI customization being possible. Often it's just a set of fairly simple features like picking a favorite background color for your App or being able to upload your own avatar or something.
But are there Apps out there where you can pick between say "Beginner and Expert" modes and have a radically different UI and UX depending on how experienced and comfortable you are? (Gmail sort of has a touch of that concept with the ability to either have a dense or comfortable email layout, but that's barely scratching the surface of what's possible)
PS: I realize that trying to develop, maintain, and support mobile and desktop versions of different versions of the same App would morph into a significant and unpleasant challenge, but being able to pick the type of UI might be a possible solution that pleases more types of users.
Yes, plenty. They've never been particularly popular, because they tend to impose an "all or nothing" switch to the user: by going Expert, you're suddenly overwhelmed by loads of options you don't know and don't understand. People mostly prefer a gentler path, where you become familiar with one feature at a time when you need it particularly badly.
This, in theory, would suggest that the best approach is to morph the interface over time, making those advanced-but-useful features easier to access once discovered. But most people also hate interfaces that change, so in practice that approach doesn't work well. Maybe it will all be solved by a ML engine that looks at what you do every day and automatically serves you the features it thinks you'll want; but Microsoft kinda tried that in a bunch of places and I don't think it was particularly successful.
2) I can't help but think that many UI problems would be solved by Apps replacing meaningless icons with actual text labels. I can't remember what half the random symbols on software I use daily for hours means. If something is a sharing icon or a saving icon, I have no clue half the time. But simply having text labels on buttons and links everywhere would make all software a lot more explorable and understandable.
Completely different audiences and incentives. Gamers game because they want to; most people use apps because they have to, to get shit done and pay the rent. Gamers are motivated to inspect capabilities in order to get an advantage, to solve the gameplay puzzle, even just to kill time; people are motivated to get the hell out of apps as quickly as possible and go shopping.
I don't care about the capabilities of MS Word, I just want to type some stuff out. I don't care that Outlook can read RSS feeds, I just want to send an email. I skip every single onboarding wizard I can skip, because I honestly don't give a shit about 90% of "features" out there. If people cared about advanced features, we'd all be using Emacs.
> many UI problems would be solved by Apps replacing meaningless icons with actual text labels
I don't disagree in principle, but the reality is that text takes a lot of screen real estate, scales badly, and most people think text-heavy UIs just look ugly. We could definitely have better and more meaningful icons though; the "material" anti-skeuomorphing bullshit has inflicted a lot of damage on the credibility of UX practitioners, over the last decade. The 90s in comparison were a dream.
1) I understand that the motivation for playing games is far different from the motivation for work. My main point is just to indicate that there's some games that basically simulate entire economies (on a planetary or even galaxy-wide scale) and a large amount of intricate detail. Using some approaches from games to display UI might help in the business world too. (and might have other benefits)
2) Text taking up more real estate than an icon can in a sense sometimes be considered a big feature rather than a bug. A big part of good UI design is picking and choosing what UI items belong on a particular screen. Icons IMO can lend themselves to bad overall practices because you can fit more junk into every single screen. If you need to fit every single possible command into one screen, the command line is the best method for that.
I never really understood why they focus on these two things. They're good for rank beginners, I suppose, but once you've even approached competency, those "easier" workflows inevitably end up being a huge pain in the ass, and lower information density is actively a terrible thing.
It's because you're aiming for a system where you don't need to reward the competency of long term employees and can instead just pluck random people off the street, pay them next to nothing and replace them when they quit.
Where I work it's not uncommon for people to come into engineering through support > support engineering > software engineering. At one point our top AE decided he didn't want the stress of selling and went from AE > PM > UI Engineer. These have always been some of my favorite engineers to work with.
AND if a developer actually has the opportunity to do something about it. Many companies overbook their developers time such that deadlines are constantly missed, where in that prioritization is their room for significant improvements to other services?
If the Engineering Manager is judged by their project throughput how does the EM feel about their reports working outside of that scope?
If there's value in Customer Service there should be a distinct team working on it and it shouldn't become a second job existing employees have to work.
We had customer support for Google Fiber, and engineers could pair with a CSR to listen to calls whenever they wanted to. We were widely regarded as having excellent customer support, and of course, customers were calling us about our highest priority but most difficult to fix bugs.
The difference will be if you think that you're going to come up with better prescriptions for success than they are (and this is where the level of executive cleverness comes into play). One day per month in a Starbucks shop and then giving technical directives wouldn't make any sense, but one day per month in a Starbucks shop and then redirecting budgeting at a corporate level might.
And I know personally that my experience working in a small-business warehouse back when I was young was absolutely garbage. Smaller businesses rarely get any news coverage, but I worked in a warehouse with zero ventilation, no safety training, no safety equipment, nobody trained in logistics, broken and improper lifting equipment, etc. This is par for the course at a workplace with zero outside scrutiny.
Amazon warehouses are at least run by professionals in logistics, have proper safety procedures, equipment, training, etc. As I understand, the 'bad' part is the volume. But at the end of the day, even a well-run warehouse job is a warehouse job. It is physical work.
Similar situation where they would send everyone in the company to work in the store, so you would actually use the system you've developed in the real world and understand why everyone always hates the software.
In the case of offices, the receptionist is the most important and powerful person there. They are the ones who have the ear of everybody else, have control of access to everyone else, know how things really work (as opposed to how everyone says they work), etc.
A good or bad word from the receptionist can literally make or break business deals.
Bezos would do one day a year operating the customer service lines.
> “You’re doing what Bob Iger does at Disney!” Jack tells Gavin. “He makes every manager wear the Goofy suit one day out of the year.”
The new Starbucks CEO is Laxman Narasimhan. Google says he's worth about $20m.
The previous Starbucks CEO was Howard Schultz. He's worth about $3.7b
Can somebody who is worth between $20m and $3.7b really just... hang out broad daylight behind a counter at a Starbucks from a security perspective?
Obviously I get the gap between $20m (he's just starting out, I'm sure his net worth will grow to at least $50m shortly if he does well at Starbucks) and $3.7b is huge. But at what point is going outside (without security? where people know you will be?) kind of a risk?
If I was worth $3b (like the previous Starbucks CEO), I'd be worried about being held up at gunpoint/abducted/held hostage for ransom.
I am lead to believe Tim Cook doesn't just walk around like you and I?
My first McJob was at an owner-operated McDonalds where the owner would roll in at lunch on a Saturday in his BMW Z4, see the lunch rush, wash his hands, throw on some gloves, and call out to turn on the other side of the grill for assembly and start packing orders himself on that side to help out the workload.
Gained a lot of respect as an impressionable young adult on what a good leader looks like at that job because his efforts trickled down to his store manager and the managers underneath them.
The worst thing was that Ray Kroc's wife live in the next town over and routinely came through our drive thru. Once the lot was being re-surfaced and she was royally pissed that the drive thru was closed and she had to come inside and mingle with the hoi polloi.