Skip to main content

Steve Jobs and Usability

Apple products are reputed primarily for two things:
  • ease of use
  • aesthetics
A Forbes article gives us a glimpse into how Apple has achieved ease of use in its products. Apparently, CEO Steve Jobs insisted that products be usable. Judging by the following quote from an Apple engineer, he did so by insisting on usability requirements without dictating design details:


Steve would be horribly offended [if] he couldn’t get to the song he wanted in less than three pushes of a button.


Design is important. But don't lose sight of the real usability requirements for your product. The real usability requirements are metrics, not functional specifications or UI layouts.

Comments

Unknown said…
I would like to point out that design is a process of iteration. It is based on user experience and psychology. Getting to three clicks is not where they started, it was where they worked towards getting to. It was the underlying software, the hardware, what was accessible at the time and what they learned as they iterated that has given them what they ended up with thus far.

Steve was more likely to be offended if the engineers, designers, etc, were not as passionate about the user's experience of the product as he was. The user is the first priority, and then they would figure out the money part.

Let's stop the myth that design is about making thing pretty. The best design is likely the most boring one because you didn't noticed it existed.
Roger L. Cauvin said…
Great points, Darren!

As you imply, usability requirements depend on feasibility. Usability metrics improve through iteration, and it's hard to predict up front what targets are feasible.

I also like what you wrote about the best designs being boring. I once asked Alan Cooper the best registration or login experience he'd ever seen. His answer: "I didn't."

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

Use Case as a Black Box

Consider the following use case: Purchase Items Actor: Purchaser Precondition: Purchaser types at least thirty words per minute and has a web navigation efficiency rating of at least 40. Postcondition: For the average Purchaser acting at full efficiency, the number of seconds elapsed is no more than 30 + 20 * n, where n is the number of items purchased. The name of the use case represents a functional requirement. What does the product do, or enable the user to do? Purchase items. What are we to make of the preconditions and postconditions? What relationship do they have to the requirements for the product? Answer: the preconditions and postconditions are the nonfunctional requirements attached to the functional requirement . Another way of expressing the nonfunctional requirement would be as an attribute and associated constraint: Usability: For a Purchaser who types at least thirty words per minute and has a web navigation efficiency rating of at least 40, it shall take no

Henry Ford's "Faster Horse" Quote

You may have heard the ( apocryphal ) Henry Ford quote: If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have said "a faster horse". Over at the On Product Management blog , Saeed gives his take on this infamous quote. He "hates" it, and gives some compelling reasons. Saeed is spot on in his explanations. Personally, I think the quote is great, but it's a matter of interpretation. The valid point of the quote is not that it's a bad idea to facilitate a conversation with your market to better understand it. The valid points are: You must ask the right questions to get valuable answers. You must interpret the answers thoughtfully - often outside their direct meaning - to glean reliable information. Asking questions is not always the best way to "listen" to your market. (E.g., sometimes pure observational studies are more reliable.) Nonetheless, I find the quote is helpful to combat "armchair product management" in the