6 comments

  • Dan Charlesworth, over 4 years ago

    I had high hopes for this article based on the A+ title.

    1 point
  • Yasen DimovYasen Dimov, over 4 years ago

    I wanted to comment on that but I really hate discus... So here is it:

    Not that I disagree, but frankly, I think this is a weak article. Firstly because if a particular software does not solve a problem, the "UX" is irrelevant anyway. Secondly, the two examples given are fairly subjective, Starwood made a business choice and Facebook can sit and watch all the data flow in and then make informed decisions based on data...

    Lastly, "user friendly" is a tool of the innovation... if the underlying design changes, the rules of something being user friendly will change. And "being useful" is a completely different thing, in my opinion...

    Also, I might be wrong.

    1 point
    • Mike PropstMike Propst, over 4 years ago (edited over 4 years ago )

      I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a bad article but yeah it's not super strong; the difference between useful and usable is something Norman, Spool, and pretty much everyone else have tried to drive home for a while. Nothing as revolutionary as the post tries to make it out to be, and I really don't understand the hot-take-esque title... but I suppose it's good to have a reminder of the difference sometimes.

      0 points
      • Yasen DimovYasen Dimov, over 4 years ago

        Well, I might have been a little too strong there. Not a bad article, but frankly, nothing groundbreaking...

        0 points
  • Thompson GeorgeThompson George, almost 5 years ago

    Starwood app solves a minor first world problem. That is all.

    0 points
  • Caitlin G, almost 5 years ago

    I would argue that the process of figuring out what a user base wants and needs and then making a product that 'magically' addresses those wants and needs is equivalent to making something 'user friendly.' If a product doesn't address a user's needs, it's not really user friendly, is it?

    0 points