Nate's post on Donald Norman's "The Design of Everyday Things" inspired me. I started writing a comment and figured out that I needed to blog. I suppose trackback is good for this sort of thing, but I've never taken the time to figure out how it works. (Maybe someone could tell me.)
It amazes me how poor design permiates so much of the world around us. Why is this? You would think businessess would figure out that bad design cost them money: either through lost productivity or lost sales.
Don't businesses realize how much money they are losing when their "in-house" application has a bad user interface? Shouldn't they force their development team to take a user interface (UI) design class--or better yet--hire someone with human-computer interaction (HCI) experience.
The market rewards businesses who spend the time to develop good user interfaces. Just look at iPod versus just about any other portible MP3 player. Also, look at experience provided by video game consoles versus computer games. The consumer can easily figure out how to use the console game, the consumer can simply "install" the game by placing the game inside the console ("uninstall is just as easy"), and once "installed", the game will "just work" and "look great." Computer games are a bigger risk--the consumer doesn't necessarily know that he can get game to work with his system. It seems that computer games have become more and more niche to compete with console games (RTSes, super high-end graphics, online-gaming). Even Microsoft realizes this. MS could leverage their desktop OS monopoly to push their own games, but instead they dove into the console business. Microsoft, of all businesses, has the most control over the variables involved in ensuring a game will work for a computer system, but even Microsoft can't get deliver the consistent user experience via the PC like the consoles provide by avoid the PC.
Why don't businesses realize that good UIs give them a competative advantage and spend the extra money to get ahead? Some businesses may be able to get away with bad UIs because consumers don't realize just how much their product stinks until they have already paid for it. But with greater access to product reviews via the Internet, consumers can make even more informed choices than before. Why don't companies realize good interface design will give them that coveted word-of-mouth advertizing?
On another note, I think anyone who is responsible for creating a user interface (not just software UIs) should take an UI design class. Particularly computer science programs should require their students to take an HCI class. Sure, some of those students will go out into industry and create software components without ever touching the software's UI, but most every CS grad that I know has worked on a project where they have influenced in the UI. If people just had enough training to see the problem, bad design might bother them enough that they wouldn't churn out horrible interfaces.
Posted by enigma at February 8, 2005 01:28 PMRe: "In house" software and lost productivity. I understand that internal software doesn't require the same polish as a commercial product... but when time to market is as critical as it is you would think that usability (which has a direct relationship with development time) would be a priority.
Out of respect for my NDA I'll refrain from getting specific. :-)