Archive
Categories
- Blogroll (3)
- Business (27)
- Cognition (7)
- Contemplation (157)
- Design (57)
- Design Discourse (2)
- Disruptive (29)
- Ecology (10)
- Education (36)
- Entertainment (6)
- Information Architecture (1)
- Information Design (6)
- Information Management (1)
- Interaction (27)
- Interface (47)
- Media (6)
- Methodology (7)
- Peak oil (6)
- Politics (92)
- Practice (9)
- Programming (42)
- Science (1)
- Social Computing (20)
- Tools (119)
- Uncategorized (17)
- Weblog Theory (113)
Tags
apple awards Business computing concept concert conspiracy contest definitions Design developments discourse documentary Ecology economy Education experiments failure financial crisis future global warming hobnox Interface iphone live Media money music news opinion Politics Programming public religion research software teaching this_blog tinderbox understanding usa user experience webdesign weblogging windows
The rediscovery of function in product design
The ACM IT magazine publishes an article written by Andreas Pfeiffer titled »Why features don’t matter anymore: The new laws of digital technology«. He lists ten fundamental rules for the age of user experience technology. The article begins with this:
This observation applies a meme to marketing that I often present in one of my lectures: the differences in the definition of the term »functionality«. In a system-centered perspective functionality is based on features and potential things one could do. In a user-centered perspective functionality is based on tasks and actual actions that are performed. With simpler words: »Functionality« is not about what I could do with a system in theory, but rather what I am actually doing in practice.
This is really hard to understand for developers who tend to focus on the feature list of a system and then suggest users just need more training to get the most out of the product. The marketing would make packages filled with things you could do (if only you would be a power user enough to handle that power!). But the daily frustration with software that is oh-so powerful taught users to become sceptical: they’d rather buy something that does few things right than something that does many things wrong.
I think the iPod was never appealing as a standalone product but rather as a piece of an integrated and thought through product system with the Music Store and iTunes as “missing pieces” for anything you could possibly do with your music: listening, ripping, mixing, collecting, burning CDs, archiving, shopping, gifting, subscribing – and taking it with you on the go, to a party or in the car. In the WIndows-world you had all this functionality spread over different applications and hardware from different vendors – which often requires mere luck to get everything to work without problems.
Update: Tim Bruysten pointed me to this funny parody: How would the iPod packaging look like if Microsoft would have designed it?
Share: