Skip to main content

Gmail Delete Button, Revisited

On his ack/nak blog, Bob Corrigan wrote about how Gmail has at long last added a delete button so that you can delete e-mails you no longer want to keep. I've implied in the past that Gmail's lack of a delete button was actually the result of a great requirements insight.

However, so many users have demanded the delete button that Google finally added it to Gmail. It's an interesting case, though, because it's likely that the vast majority of users who clamored for it have no concrete and practical reason for it. For example, Corrigan doesn't claim that the unnecessary e-mail affects his ability to find wanted e-mails or have caused him to run out of storage space. Instead, he writes vaguely that he doesn't want unnecessary e-mails "in his stack" and even that he may be a little compulsive about it.

I do believe there are some practical reasons for the delete button, such as keeping e-mail from exes out of sight from current significant others who may have access to your e-mail. Nonetheless, in the end, Google had to accept that largely emotional (perhaps even irrational) factors affected the usability of their e-mail product.


bob said…
Nothing vague about it, actually. I don't like vendor clutter in my inbox. It's like sand in the vaseline. Or, hmm, like hay with your needles. Choose your favorite "bad" mixed with "good" simile, they're all good.

You could, correctly, find me guilty of an over-fondness of oblique, vaguely obfuscatory language, which could also be referred to as vague.

Except as it relates to my lack of fondness for expired mailing list messages from the likes of United and their ilk. Even if I could store, say, untold thousands of them and never know better. Because I would know better.

Honestly, though, we have better things to be writing about. Like why I can't get the last link on your Google PM series to resolve correctly. . .
Roger L. Cauvin said…
Bob, thanks for your comment and for your original point about Google's humility.

You're right that your objection to clutter is in one sense straightforward. In another sense, though, it's mysterious.

"Even if I could store, say, untold thousands of [expired mailing list messages] and never know better. Because I would know better."

Why does knowledge of the messages bother you if it doesn't affect any practical goal (e.g. find wanted messages, avoid running out of storage space) you want to achieve? Part of a product manager's job is to understand root causes so that we can frame problems in such a manner as to liberate us from traditional solutions (like delete buttons).
bob said…
You've asked an important question. Sometimes, our customers' perceptions of and use of our products defy logic. When faced with this, we can either choose to defy back, or embrace that subjective evidence.

As a PM meself, begorrah, I look for feedback at a variety of levels, including the emotional. Ask any of your user experience designers about how end-users react to products, and they'll bend your ear about how people "react" to products. If a user can connect to a product at both an intellectual and emotional level ("it feels easy", "I like the way it looks", "the colors are very pleasing"), then you've got a user that will be hard to pry away from your product.

Since I bet they track how often every element of Gmail is used, how often each menu item is clicked, Google saw that people were deleting a lot of email. Did that make "sense" to them? Probably not. Did they respond to it as an emergent use-case that customers wanted? You betcha.

I know my reasons for deleting email are different from other folks' reasons. In the end, the use-case was there, and Google reacted even though it was contradictory to their core positioning of Gmail ("you don't have to throw anything away").

That's humility, in the best sense, and I like to see that in a software company.
Roger L. Cauvin said…
Bob, I agree. As product managers, we must do everything we can to understand why people want features and why certain things bother them. Often, what may seem purely emotional or irrational on the surface actually has an underlying practical rationale. But when it doesn't we still have to accept it as the will of the customer (if they are customers we choose to target).

Popular posts from this blog

Why Spreadsheets Suck for Prioritizing

The Goal As a company executive, you want confidence that your product team (which includes all the people, from all departments, responsible for product success) has a sound basis for deciding which items are on the product roadmap. You also want confidence the team is prioritizing the items in a smart way. What Should We Prioritize? The items the team prioritizes could be features, user stories, epics, market problems, themes, or experiments. Melissa Perri  makes an excellent case for a " problem roadmap ", and, in general, I recommend focusing on the latter types of items. However, the topic of what types of items you should prioritize - and in what situations - is interesting and important but beyond the scope of this blog entry. A Sad but Familiar Story If there is significant controversy about priorities, then almost inevitably, a product manager or other member of the team decides to put together The Spreadsheet. I've done it. Some of the mos

What Product Managers Can Learn from the Apple iPod

The Story When Apple unveiled its iPod digital music player back in October 2001, I dismissed it as a  parity product . I already owned the Cowon iAUDIO CW100 MP3 player, loaded with my favorite tunes. There was Apple, generating great hype over the iPod as if it were a breakthrough product. The idea of a portable digital music player was nothing new. The first mass-produced MP3 players came out in 1998. In late 2001, the concept may have been new to a lot of Apple customers, but it wasn't new to me. I proudly showed my MP3 player to friends when they gushed about the iPod. Thus Apple's iPod was not an innovative product in and of itself. Years later, however, I realized the significance of ecosystem of which the iPod was a part. Apple had released iTunes (with technology purchased from  SoundJam MP ) and created the iTunes Store for finding and downloading music. Unlike Napster , it was a safe and legal way of distributing and acquiring music. The prior way of playing

Stop Validating and Start Falsifying

The product management and startup worlds are buzzing about the importance of "validation". In this entry, I'll explain how this idea originated and why it's leading organizations astray. Why Validate? In lean startup circles, you constantly hear about "validated learning" and "validating" product ideas: The assumption is that you have a great product idea and seek validation from customers before expending vast resources to build and bring it to market. Indeed, it makes sense to transcend conventional approaches to making product decisions . Intuition, sales anecdotes, feature requests from customers, backward industry thinking, and spreadsheets don't form the basis for sound product decisions. Incorporating lean startup concepts , and a more scientific approach to learning markets, is undoubtedly a sounder approach. Moreover, in larger organizations, sometimes further in the product life-cycle, everyone seems to have an opinio