Comment by charcircuit
9 months ago
People can self sabotage by choosing a bad theme, and then they engage with the app less or even churn. Designers need to be careful to not give people rope for them to hang themselves with.
9 months ago
People can self sabotage by choosing a bad theme, and then they engage with the app less or even churn. Designers need to be careful to not give people rope for them to hang themselves with.
> Designers need to be careful to not give people rope for them to hang themselves with.
No, they don't. It's my system, and the look should be what I want it to be, period. What designers actually need to do is learn to respect their users, even when they disagree with the user's choices.
My teenager has their cell phone keyboard configured so all the symbols are replaced with cartoon cats. They can't type properly on it at all - I get text messages that are completely garbled - but they love that they can do this even though it actively impairs their functionality.
Some people like having ridiculously long fake nails that make it difficult to do their jobs (i'm thinking some checkout clerks I've seen who can't properly push any of the keys on their terminal), but it's their choice.
Certainly that's a good reason to force a legible version of settings, and the path to settings...
But if the user sets the system to hot dog stand, the apps should be hot dog stand. If the user wants the system text font to be wingdings, they're in for a nasty time, but that doesn't mean an app should force a different font
The issue with this thinking is that it's easier for people to quit using the product than to figure out how to fix the font. You can't beat the simplicity of doing nothing, so you need to avoid getting into this state in the first place.
Gotta keep users engaged in your app, right? Keep them onboard even if that means removing all their choices. I mean, should we even allow users to uninstall apps?
After all, the developer always knows best and all users are helpless children who need to be forced to conform and comply. Who cares what the user thinks or wants so long as we keep that sweet, sweet engagement.
5 replies →
> and then they engage with the app less or even churn
I wasn't aware engagement maximisation is the reason we don't get customization options anymore, but it makes perfect sense.
No one used to care about this because it was at the discretion of the user whether they want to keep using the app or not. Whereas today, it's the company objective to keep the user in the app as much as possible.
I remember the miniform of media players. Because while you need the full interface while managing playlists, you only need a few button and some status when you’re playing music. I don’t think Spotify will ever implement that feature.
Funnily enough, Spotify did recently introduce a miniplayer [0]!
[0] https://community.spotify.com/t5/Community-Blog/Introducing-...
1 reply →
and then they engage with the app less or even churn.
If your content is so poor that a change of colors can make people leave, then perhaps your content is not worth having.
The colors is part of the content of the product. And it's not that it is 100% more likely for someone to leave sooner, but that it increases the probability that people leave sooner.
It really isn’t, unless it’s a picture or a movie.
> Designers need to be careful to not give people rope for them to hang themselves with.
See Win 95 resolution change workflow.
This was 20 years ago. A lot of knowledge was lost since then.
That’s clearly bullshit because if the user sets a system wide theme and your appLICATION follows that theme, then your appLICATION is not going to be any harder to use than the system itself nor any other appLICATION using native widgets.
What is actually happening is designers are forcing non-native controls, in part because web technologies have infested every corner of software development these days. Unsurprisingly, those non-native widgets break in a plethora of ways when the system diverges even marginally from the OS defaults.
And instead of those designers admitting that they fucked up, they instead double down on their contempt for their users.
Also, can we please not call desktop applications “apps” in response to an article about an OS that predates smartphones by several decades.
People who are more likely to customize their app are more likely power users, therefore they're going to engage with the app more anyways.
Why would someone changing app colors to ones they specifically chose make them use the app less? There is no logic in that statement.
This sounds much like a post hoc justification for having not bothered to go to the effort to implement the ability to allow anyone (power users or otherwise) the freedom to customize the "app" to their liking.
I don’t “engage” with products that infantilise me and won’t give me the rope to hang myself with, I endure them, and only to the extent I have to.
It's not about infantilizarion. It's about delivering a product that consistently offers a high quality user experience to the user.
When that user experience clashes with a sufficiently knowledgeable user, then the user experience is the problem.