Software and the User
It seems to me as we advance in the information age some people seem to loose track of what really matters to most users and consumers of software. We seem to be divided into two separate groups, which contain many subgroups within them. First, we have the group that I truly identify with; this is the group who wants functionality over the graphic appeal of the application. We want products, which perform as advertised and even go beyond our expectations with features that not only work but also provide usefulness in the tasks the software is designed to accomplish. For all intents and purposes we will refer to these people as userphiles.
Second we have those who are more concerned with the aesthetics of an application. These people are more likely to be satisfied when a feature doesn’t work as planned as long as the application is sleek and sexy looking. This group of people will be called glitzers Of course there are those who want both but even these people have a preference for one of the two sides mentioned which can make or break the experience.
The problem is that I often hear both sides lodging complaints at the same time with little to no constructive criticism to help the developers of products lacking in either area to fix these problems. This forces the developers to choose one side or the other; limiting the amount of people they can possibly market their product to. Yes it is true that many companies market on a wide scale but they effectively waste large amounts of money sending their message to a large group of people who will refuse to buy the product because of the consumers stance as a glitzer or userphile. Therefore this approach not only produces a low return on investment on the marketing budget but also produces no possible financial gain from those customers marketing for the company by word of mouth.
After reading several blog postings and various articles which were focused on reviewing software products I feel I have a very easy to implement solution to the marketing issue. If developers concentrate on writing clean efficient code that properly does its job while the program is still in its infancy they can satisfy the features group. It has become obvious that if a program is broken when a userphile attempts to try it for the first time they are less likely to give it another shot. However glitzers are very likely to retry a program they had used previously if word of mouth reaches them that the UI has been improved. In the most simple terms, if the software is user friendly and works as advertised you are much more likely to gain a following of loyal users while improving your chances of breaking into the other half of the market then if you were to produce software that only partly worked but was aesthetically pleasing.
It is always easier to improve a user interface of well-written software then it is to rewrite the core of an application to function properly. If developers and marketers would take a step back and notice this fact less money would be wasted in development and marketing of a product. Fewer products would fail. Be remarkable, release products with features nobody else’s software has, features that work and can be used with minimal effort. Stop trying to trick consumers with slow, large footprint applications, which are hard to navigate. BE REMARKABLE.
Leave a Reply