The situation described here is not one where consumers have a choice. That is, the company involved isn't presenting the new design to consumers and allowing them to vote with their feet. Instead, they have noted that the old design is selling, so they don't see the ROI they could realize from improving their product and to them the added cost is not justifiable given that they are able to reach their sales targets just fine with the old, icky design. I am not really surprised by that.
The fact is, good UI is a concern to many companies only if standard measures of ROI are ignored. From a traditional ROI perspective, UI design services are a cost that don't have a corresponding, measurable return. We know, of course, that good design does have very significant returns on investment over time, but not without juxtaposition to poor designs. That is, in a competitive marketplace, good design is a plus; all things else being equal, a better designed product will sell better. For example, given a first time consumer making a choice between two products that offer the same functionality, at the same price point, one of which has a better design... the consumer will generally pick the better designed product. But to labor under the illusion that good design in and of itself sells products is a foolish mistake. Functionality will almost ALWAYS trump design, for example. Price will often trump design. Availability will necessarily trump design. There are many factors that go into making a product saleable that extend well beyond design, and UI designers need to be cognizant of this. What makes a product "usable" is way more than what we might traditionally think of as design. "Usable" is a deeply contextual concept, and even poorly designed products can be considered "highly usable" given a mix of other factors that have nothing (or little) to do with design. I know that is heretical thinking, but the fact is, it is true; I have been doing this a long time and there are many MANY examples in the market of products that are badly designed and tremendously successful. At issue is not the way consumers buy products; this is not a question of the dumb ignorant masses being in need of education. Actually, WE are the ones who need the education; we need to understand that in the competitive marketplace, good design is just a part of making a product saleable. And yes, it can be a very powerful added value that can catapult a product above and beyond its competitors. It can be a defining factor. But good design is not THE defining factor... something we would all do well to appreciate. Just my 2 cents worth. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Seager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Why do crappy interfaces sell? > Andrew said: "Back to where I started, the effect of a bad interface > on, for example, a set of online learning materials, is to be a > distraction from the content and a slow-burn frustration for users. > This doesn't necessarily have any impact at point of sale." > > Well said. Especially true for educational software, where tens of > thousands of units may be sold before anyone uncovers the flaws. Or > cares, even if they do uncover them. > > Witness the ubiquitous WebCT, which I despise ... well, OK, let's > say I really dislike it. It was widely adopted not because it was a > great tool for the job, but because it was the best *available* tool > and the education community was clamoring for such a tool to make > distance learning more feasible -- which WebCT did, in its own clunky > way, to the frustration of many students undertaking coursework on the > Web. > > I look forward to the Next Big Thing in that market! It's probably > arrived by now. > > Your point's well-taken about content driving the educational > software market, too, Andrew. I think it should, but in this case the > content delivery system can be almost completely disregarded -- and > the real costs of that disregard (frustration, and ultimately > failure) can be passed along to the end user. > > It isn't a real-world market because the buyers are insulated from > the consequences of their flawed decisions. Happens a lot in > government, too; that's how we get $900 hammers and $600 toilet > seats for the U.S. Air Force. > > So in partial answer to this thread's overarching question, can we > say that crappy interfaces are far less likely to sell when the end > user is in control of spending, and can vote with his/her pocketbook? > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Posted from the new ixda.org > http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24918 > > > ________________________________________________________________ > *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* > February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA > Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ > > ________________________________________________________________ > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! > To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help ________________________________________________________________ *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
