Should I focus on a good user experience, or push something out quickly?
I'm working on my first serious start-up and am spending lots of time designing the things that matter in my opinion. I want to advance as quick as possible, but can't stand bad UX. Should I focus on getting the solution out the door quickly - and ugly - or take time to make a great UX.
Answer Wiki
If your UX is not good, then you can solve the problems during your prototyping stage. Otherwise ship, get people to use your product, and use their feedback to improve it.
97 Answers
This raises a question about the order of events in design. Design is a path-dependent process. That means the early moves constrain the later moves. Think about the cycle. On the very first iteration the design possibilities are wide open. The designer defines some screens and workflows and then the programmer builds those. On the next iteration, it's not wide open anymore. The new design has to fit into the existing design, and the new code needs to fit into the existing code. Old code can be changed, but you don't want to scrap everything. There is a pressure to keep moving with what is already there.
Our early design decisions are like bets whose outcome we will have to live with iteration after iteration. Since that's the case, there is a strong incentive to be sure about our early bets. In other words, we want to reduce uncertainty on the first iterations.
Uncertainty and scope are the same thing. The more scope, the more uncertainty and vice versa. So a good strategy is to reduce your scope on the first iteration so your design/build cycle is centered on a very well understood problem. Build one little feature and nail it. Then build the next one, so your path-dependent process is always moving forward from a state you are proud of.
The alternative is to make many decisions at once, with higher uncertainty, and all those so-so decisions are multiplying as they constrain future decisions. You can never really catch up.
Every feature can be better. It doesn't have to be perfect the first time. But each element should be solid and well thought-out before you move on to the next.
Our early design decisions are like bets whose outcome we will have to live with iteration after iteration. Since that's the case, there is a strong incentive to be sure about our early bets. In other words, we want to reduce uncertainty on the first iterations.
Uncertainty and scope are the same thing. The more scope, the more uncertainty and vice versa. So a good strategy is to reduce your scope on the first iteration so your design/build cycle is centered on a very well understood problem. Build one little feature and nail it. Then build the next one, so your path-dependent process is always moving forward from a state you are proud of.
The alternative is to make many decisions at once, with higher uncertainty, and all those so-so decisions are multiplying as they constrain future decisions. You can never really catch up.
Every feature can be better. It doesn't have to be perfect the first time. But each element should be solid and well thought-out before you move on to the next.
41.5k Views • Upvoted by Gary Chin, User experience architect. Technologist. Serial hobbyist., Colm Tuite, UX/UI/Visual Designer & Developer, Pete Petrash, Product Designer at Vuact
We've been researching this exact question for years. The main factor to answer your question is the market stage your new product is entering.
Technology Focus Stage
If this is a product that is so novel, so new, that it doesn't have any competitors AND it is likely to be highly desirable, then people will put up with whatever user experience you give them. After all, they need this and you're the only one to give it to them.
In this instance, you want to focus your UX efforts on the minimum most-valuable design. Cut out any features or elements that aren't directly serving the core desirability.
If it is novel and new, but the desirability isn't immediately obvious to the customer, then the UX efforts will need to focus on communicating WHY this product is important to the user. It needs to have an immediate "Oh, that's cool!" impact. (We're not talking flashy, superfluous graphics here. We're talking core communication of why this product is something the user needs.)
Feature Focus Stage
If there are other competitors and the product customers / users are deciding on yours because of critical features you're offering, then the UX won't be as high a priority as the the feature implementations. Investing in cleaning up unimportant features is a waste of effort.
In this stage, your UX efforts should focus on a few things:
Experience Focus Stage
At some point, in the marketplace, there are no more features that anyone can add. (Think of Microsoft Word. What new features could MS put into Word tomorrow that you or anyone you know about would care about?) At this point, the emphasis shifts to the overall experience of the product. Customers / users start thinking about issues such as ramp-up time and conversion costs.
If you're building into a mature market, trying to differentiate your product purely on the overall experience, you need to invest heavily in UX. You'll need to pick a lucrative niche of the market and learn everything there is to know about those folks. You'll need to do a lot of research on what is the minimal key functionality that makes the product succeed for the niche you're going after.
You'll want to reduce any conversion or on-boarding costs for your users, making everything get started right away. This could mean having smart data converters or import capabilities that just work "auto-magically" to get the user up and running. You'll need to ensure that your design matches the users expectations (from their previous experiences with your competitors products), so they have minimal "brain reprogramming" costs.
You can read more about the different stages in an article I wrote years ago on Market Maturity http://www.uie.com/articl
Technology Focus Stage
If this is a product that is so novel, so new, that it doesn't have any competitors AND it is likely to be highly desirable, then people will put up with whatever user experience you give them. After all, they need this and you're the only one to give it to them.
In this instance, you want to focus your UX efforts on the minimum most-valuable design. Cut out any features or elements that aren't directly serving the core desirability.
If it is novel and new, but the desirability isn't immediately obvious to the customer, then the UX efforts will need to focus on communicating WHY this product is important to the user. It needs to have an immediate "Oh, that's cool!" impact. (We're not talking flashy, superfluous graphics here. We're talking core communication of why this product is something the user needs.)
Feature Focus Stage
If there are other competitors and the product customers / users are deciding on yours because of critical features you're offering, then the UX won't be as high a priority as the the feature implementations. Investing in cleaning up unimportant features is a waste of effort.
In this stage, your UX efforts should focus on a few things:
- Making sure you know what the distinguishing features are and (most importantly) WHY they are important to your customers.
- Making sure your design communicates the WHY and the HOW for those features. If your design demonstrates its superiority out of the box and users can put it straight to use, you'll have a real advantage in this stage.
- Tracking your competitors' designs to ensure they don't get an truly advantageous features too far ahead of you. Spending time watching your users interact with your competitors' products can be very eye opening and produce a lot of new product benefits to incorporate.
Experience Focus Stage
At some point, in the marketplace, there are no more features that anyone can add. (Think of Microsoft Word. What new features could MS put into Word tomorrow that you or anyone you know about would care about?) At this point, the emphasis shifts to the overall experience of the product. Customers / users start thinking about issues such as ramp-up time and conversion costs.
If you're building into a mature market, trying to differentiate your product purely on the overall experience, you need to invest heavily in UX. You'll need to pick a lucrative niche of the market and learn everything there is to know about those folks. You'll need to do a lot of research on what is the minimal key functionality that makes the product succeed for the niche you're going after.
You'll want to reduce any conversion or on-boarding costs for your users, making everything get started right away. This could mean having smart data converters or import capabilities that just work "auto-magically" to get the user up and running. You'll need to ensure that your design matches the users expectations (from their previous experiences with your competitors products), so they have minimal "brain reprogramming" costs.
You can read more about the different stages in an article I wrote years ago on Market Maturity http://www.uie.com/articl
Many of these answers make strong cases for Minimum Viable Product (MVP). Even though that's a good concept with lots of merit if done correctly, I fear we're in danger of taking this too far in some cases.
Instead, I like Andrew Chen's concept of Minimum Desirable Product, which he defines at http://andrewchenblog.com
Read the rest of his post for more details around this concept.
So in answer to the question, I would say: focus on both UX (the whole process, not just visual design) and speed by launching a minimum desirable product as quickly as humanly possible.
(The next question is how? but that is a topic for a follow-up question)
Instead, I like Andrew Chen's concept of Minimum Desirable Product, which he defines at http://andrewchenblog.com
Minimum Desirable Product is the simplest experience necessary to prove out a high-value, satisfying product experience for users
Read the rest of his post for more details around this concept.
So in answer to the question, I would say: focus on both UX (the whole process, not just visual design) and speed by launching a minimum desirable product as quickly as humanly possible.
(The next question is how? but that is a topic for a follow-up question)
User Experience is about the qualitative and subjective feeling a person has about using something. It covers a number of qualities. To quote Peter Morville here:
Having said that, you are comparing the speed at which a product ships to all of these qualities. In all of these causes it would not be a win to factor time to market over a good user experience.
I feel confident in say that if you do your research you will see that in many cases the first to market does not always yield a market leader. Some examples:
I am sure there are plenty of other examples. What we're talking about here is "First-mover advantage," (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w
Here is a great video for where you are at right now. Packed with lots of great information. It answers these kinds of questions and more:
Fall 2009 Quarter Roundup: What Did We Learn?
http://ecorner.stanford.e
Pay specific attention around 6 minute mark. To quote Mr. Blank, "It doesn't mean you never want to be the first mover. But the historic Stanford first mover advantage, I think over the last decade or two, has found out to be a divide by zero problem. It's just wrong. You don't always want to be the first mover. In fact, you typically want to be the first fast follower."
Feel free to debate this one, but to me the evidence is pretty clear.
- Useful. As practitioners, we can't be content to paint within the lines drawn by managers. We must have the courage and creativity to ask whether our products and systems are useful, and to apply our deep knowledge of craft and medium to define innovative solutions that are more useful.
- Usable. Ease of use remains vital, and yet the interface-centered methods and perspectives of human-computer interaction do not address all dimensions of web design. In short, usability is necessary but not sufficient.
- Desirable. Our quest for efficiency must be tempered by an appreciation for the power and value of image, identity, brand, and other elements of emotional design.
- Findable. We must strive to design navigable web sites and locatable objects, so users can find what they need.
- Accessible. Just as our buildings have elevators and ramps, our web sites should be accessible to people with disabilities (more than 10% of the population). Today, it's good business and the ethical thing to do. Eventually, it will become the law.
- Credible. Thanks to the Web Credibility Project, we're beginning to understand the design elements that influence whether users trust and believe what we tell them.
- Valuable. Our sites must deliver value to our sponsors. For non-profits, the user experience must advance the mission. With for-profits, it must contribute to the bottom line and improve customer satisfaction.
Having said that, you are comparing the speed at which a product ships to all of these qualities. In all of these causes it would not be a win to factor time to market over a good user experience.
I feel confident in say that if you do your research you will see that in many cases the first to market does not always yield a market leader. Some examples:
- Social Media - first to market: Friendster (arguably) - market leader: Facebook
- Search - first to market: Yahoo (arguably) - market leader: Google
- Online Book Sales - first to market: Charles Stack Online Bookstore - market leader: Amazon
- Smart Phones - first to market: BlackBerry - market leader: Apple iPhone (arguably)
I am sure there are plenty of other examples. What we're talking about here is "First-mover advantage," (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w
Here is a great video for where you are at right now. Packed with lots of great information. It answers these kinds of questions and more:
Fall 2009 Quarter Roundup: What Did We Learn?
http://ecorner.stanford.e
Pay specific attention around 6 minute mark. To quote Mr. Blank, "It doesn't mean you never want to be the first mover. But the historic Stanford first mover advantage, I think over the last decade or two, has found out to be a divide by zero problem. It's just wrong. You don't always want to be the first mover. In fact, you typically want to be the first fast follower."
Feel free to debate this one, but to me the evidence is pretty clear.
I don't think you can truly know what a good user experience is, until you have users. If you're talking about usability, cover your bases there, but otherwise just flip the switch. There's a difference between launch as a marketing tactic, and as a practical matter of letting people in— set expectations accordingly. The only way you can fail is if you don't meet the expectations which you control. Good luck!
