[UX] Which value is better for Users?
I have been thinking about what can be best value to users when I design UX. When we design UX, function of the technical side is not only the value, but the philosophy can be a good vale to users. In this point, I compared 2 cases from the mobile phone manufacturers, and reviewed which value do they want to deliver to their customers.
(Translated in Korean: Link)
I have one thing to consider when I have worked in UX. That is what users really need. I mean which value is really needed for users.
This has been one thing in my thought for a long time because there was no conclusion among UX experts about this. They have all different ideas about that subjectively, and I think 'user value' seems to be very subjective because probably we are both users and UX experts at the same time.
By the way, I think I got a hint for the answer of this topic from company A's approach when they make their mobile phone. (I am not an admirer for the company and I have no connection to them at all though) Actually, I have been interested in different approaches among the manufacturers for mobile phone, and let's talk about what it is below.
This image shows side of their phones. I think company S designed cutting edge of glass of display before 2 generations from now. The design was very sensational, people told it cool enough. Until then, there was no try to cut the edge of the glass and most of manufacturers just tried to cut the body side. That's why many people thought that was very innovative, but I think it was itself. I mean there was no advance. After 2 years, this design sheds new light because company A launched a new generation mobile phone designed this. In this case, we should think about why people are enthusiastic about this even if this is not so new to them.
One of the reasons is what they perfectly synchronize software and hardware for the product. Mostly they try to optimize software or hardware only because they don't mind it for the product, so many people still try to optimize their phone by themselves and share the information for it each other. Of course, I know company A can do this because they develop both of them and obviously people can say like this. However, I want to talk about the reason that they did it before we talk about what they have resources and what they can do as a manufacturer. (Apparently they didn't intend this and they just did it by chance. Moreover, admirers could make an adorable story about that, by the way, that's true by itself for me as well.)
When you see the image below, there is something weird about the hardware design of company S. (Left side image). They cut the glass softly, but they covered chrome edge under the glass. That's why you can't feel it fully when you do a sliding action on the glass due to the chrome edge. That will make you feel less soft on your finger. However, company A got rid of this chrome(metal) edge under the glass for nothing to feel when you slide your finger on it. You know company A had been keeping the chrome(metal) edge design almost for two or three generation of the products though. I also have heard that they did it to maximize the experience in Sapari browser. (You know Sapari browser support to move the previous and next page with this kind of sliding action.) Who knows that they did with this reason or not, but this is very different from the approach of company A.
Of course, I didn't make sure this from the company, but if you have a experience of sliding action with this design, you can know how much this is cool, and you never say this pessimistically. If this was really designed for the optimization of software and hardware, and they tried to design for users, I may be able to understand enough how much they consider UX and their efforts for users.
One more thing of their different approach is changing the type of USB cable. Company 'S' changed USB 2.0 to USB 3.0 (Left side image), and company 'A' changed 24pin cable to 8pin cable. (Right side image) Normally people can say this is just a change of cable size, but I am sure there is something interesting to me beyond just the change.
Company S said they changed it to USB 3.0 to improve charging performance and transmitting data. According to the article of the blog, it shows it can be 30 seconds shorter to download 4.3GB from PC to mobile phone. You know USB 2.0 takes 2 minutes and 40 seconds to do that. (It means USB 3.0 takes 2 minutes and 10 seconds.) I don't know this test is fair enough to verify, but other blogs also showed the almost same result about that. (URL: http://blog.naver.com/revive0106/220167874178)
On the other hand, company A said they changed it to 8pin cable to make it simple and connect any sides.
I have introduced this case of company A in a public session for the company, and briefed what this change means for UX. At that time, CTO asked me what the disadvantage is from the change. I am not a technician about that, but I just answered that might become less bandwidth because of lack of cable pin based on a common sense. He seemed to assure that I couldn't answer it in detail like that, and them he tried to teach me that didn't transmit analog signal any more, and he insisted the change was not just good to all users.
Honestly, this case is very interesting and disappointing at the same time to me. That's why I am talking to you for this topic though, I need to explain many things for that. (To explain which value is better for users when we design UX)
UX philosophy is very important to me when we design UX, and I ask myself and someone else to do that which value you will give the users with your UI/UX. Anyway they say what they intend with their UI/UX, but I couldn't feel any philosophy from their designed UI/UX. They have their own logic, they don't have any philosophy not to move users to your UX.
As I said above, it is common to develop just software for UX, but considering both software and hardware is not so common. I think this shows what their philosophy is for UX. Moreover, knowing what users really want is making a change for UX with a small try.
Of course, I didn't mean USB 3.0 cable is not necessary or lack of user value when we plan UX. Some users want to improve a functional side, but other users want to another experience by the change. However, I want to ask you a question.
Planning for UX as a functional aspect is more attractive when it is much more valuable than users think. Don't you think so? (I wish you would think about that as a normal user.) For example, a change from dual core to quad core is really countable as a user value, and normal user can feel it easily? I think if this change is so innovative like from 10 seconds to 1 second, is this really cool to you? Well, for me 2 minutes and 40 seconds or 2 minutes and 10 seconds are not so different to feel. It still takes some time anyway. Of course, that is just my thought though.
On the other hand, the change of the cable from company A doesn't intend this kind of change for performance. If we just see it functionally, it is downgraded as the technician said. One thing to focus on their consideration is what they tried to change the experience by itself for users when it comes to connecting it any sides.
I saw a big difference between company A and company S and it is countable or non-countable for user value. Something non-countable would rather be impossible to evaluate than it is unclear to estimate for users. That is what I wanted to tell you.
Is this what the mostly we consider when we design all UX? In addition, should we make an effort to fulfill this kind of user value for them? The answer will always be with you and your choice. See you next time.
댓글
댓글 쓰기