Friday September 28, 2007

Easy to Use

by Garrett Dimon in Article

5 comments

Easy to use. It’s an interesting phrase that means absolutely nothing. However, it gets bandied about with reckless abandon by marketers, stakeholders, developers, and designers alike. It’s not the only over-used meaningless phrase, but it’s right near the top. It really needs to stop.

Meaning

Just as a car company wouldn’t brag that they offer round steering wheels or tires, a decent software company shouldn’t brag about ease of use. If it has to be said, it’s just not true.

Easy to use? According to whom? Who is the arbiter of the “easy-to-use” designation? Certainly, the developer’s sense of ease is different from that of my parents or grandparents. Even if it had meaning, it would mean something different to everyone.

Of course, it’s not news that marketing can be meaningless, but this phrase in particular concerns me. It implies a mentality that ease of use is something special, when in fact, it should be a minimum requirement.

Not a Feature

Just as a car company wouldn’t brag that they offer round steering wheels or tires, a decent software company shouldn’t brag about ease of use. If it has to be said, it’s just not true.

Features are statements of fact. “Easy to use” or “user-friendly” describe an individual’s perception. It’s laughable that someone could think that the phrase “easy to use” or any derivative could be a justifiable claim to make about their product.

Did Michael Jordan ever run around touting his basketball skills? Of course not. He didn’t need to.

Comments on “Easy to Use”

1. Kraemer said:

   “If it has to be said, it’s just not true.” Indeed. It’s not only laughable to call your product “easy to use,” its insulting to the individual who actually finds it very difficult; like “What’s wrong with you?”

2. Kyle Hayes said:

   Heh, I like Kraemer’s last statement :-P

3. Travis Isaacs said:

   Sometimes when consulting a client about a project I like to play the opposites game- so if this version is easy to use, is there a hard-to-use version? Or, “our brand promise is easy, efficient, and reliable.” Is there a brand out there who’s promise is hard, clumsy, and unreliable?

   It sounds silly at first, but it really helps clients and stakeholders get past things that are expected as a competency of their product or brand and really focus on what is important and special

4. Eniola said:

   I agree . When people use the phrase “easy to use” in the “technology world”. Users of this phrase are targeting an audience that is plagued by many an application that is “hard to use”. The phrase infers “easier to use (than those other application you hate from those other vendors)”. To some end-users or buyers, this phrase still gives a fuzzy felling. Because consumers still have hard to use applications the idea of an easy to use application is still somewhat unique. In addition, corporations and organizations as cultures have some greater allowable level of what is “hard to use” in their business applications than say an average consumer with a personal app.

   To use your analogy , until the idea and actuality of “easy to use” in the case of applications, is as standard as round steering wheels in cars (that is, the existence of anything slightly off from this norm is totally unacceptable). The phrase will still resonate with some end-users and serve the motives of the people who use it.

5. Jef said:

   One of the best ways to get out of the “weasel phrases” like “easy to use” is to ask how you can demonstrate it. For example, “9 out of 10 people new to the application are productive within 5 minutes of starting to use it.” Suzanne and James Robertson describe this notion of acceptance in their book Mastering the Requirements Process. The overall process is a bit waterfallish for my taste, but the content is really good none-the-less.