On the way to simplicity: how difficult it is for developers
“The Power of Simplicity” - this phrase is increasingly heard in Macroscop developer rooms during version planning. Now we are more than ever focused on the simplicity of the product, including only what users really need into it, and removing only little demand.
Surprisingly, making the product easy for the user is very difficult. We understood this from our own experience when we faced questions that could not be answered with a definite answer:
• more importantly, simplicity or functionality?
• to what extent can the product be simplified?
• and to whom to be guided in the end when making changes?
Of course, it was always clear to us that the product should be made simple for the user. This is confirmed by common sense and the experience of successful companies from various fields.
')
Look, for example, on Dropbox. Once, Macroscop CEO Artem Razumkov spoke with one of the creators of this service. He said that the idea of storing files in the cloud was known for a long time, and for this it was necessary to press the button only 1 time - download the file. What they invented is simply a transition from one click to zero clicks: a person simply puts the file in a regular folder and it is downloaded to the cloud automatically. The "download" button does not need to click! This simple idea of moving from 1 click to 0 clicks allowed them to soar to incredible heights. Here it is the power of simplicity!
Or Uber. Why did he become so popular? Because it is extremely simple for the user: no need to call and tell the operator where you are and where you are going, count the cash for the taxi driver and suffer from the exchange. You press exactly one button and a car comes to you. What could be simpler and more convenient ?!
But why then not all products are like Uber? The fact is that just make it very difficult. Some people think that simplicity is easy for everyone, but in fact simplicity is simple for users, but it is very hard for developers to do.
For example, Google. Google for the user is one search line, it is very simple. But the fact that, by entering a search query in this line, the user gets what they need, thousands of engineers, developers and researchers are working. It would be possible to insert a lot of different settings and filters that the user would have to twist in order for the search to give him what he needed, but Google engineers took it upon themselves. And in order for the user to have everything so simple, they implemented extremely complex technologies that understand and guess what search settings are implied.
Making it easy is difficult. It’s almost impossible to develop it right away. Therefore, the path to a user-friendly product most often goes through the simplification of something complicated, rather than creating something from scratch at once simple and convenient.
And to create a new, and to simplify our existing one recipe - do everything exclusively in conjunction with the user experience!
In one of the previous posts, we talked about how to create a new video analytics module - the function of inter-camera tracking. It allows you to track the trajectory of a person through multiple cameras video system. Initially, when the idea to create intercameral tracking appeared, we did not think about its convenience for users. We wanted to RELEASE the FUNCTION as many developers want. And at the initial stage, camera tracking was one of the search filters.
Initially, inter-camera tracking was one of the Macroscop search filters.
In Macroscop, there was a search by size, a search by signs, a search by place in the frame, and ... inter-camera tracking. Of course, it was illogical and inconvenient for the user. To activate inter-camera tracking, it was necessary to do some incredible manipulations: first, find a person whose trajectory you will build - to do this, set signs, paint a sample, find it in the archive; then, on one of the results, activate the interchamber tracking mode; then add samples there one by one manually. It was a long, difficult and absolutely not the way the user had to. And he had to “track”: to see the object on the screen and build a trajectory right there, right now, and not draw signs and paint the little people.
When we understood this and decided to work on convenience and simplicity, we formulated a goal: 7 out of 10 people who had not previously used the inter-camera tracking function and moreover are not professional users of video surveillance systems, but simply know how to work on a computer, should without oral prompts our side to solve the problem of building a trajectory. We went through several iterations of improvement, after each of which we invited 10 different users, put them at the computer and asked to solve this problem. And when 7 out of 10 “experimental” self-built trajectories, we decided that we made the inter-camera tracking really user friendly.
In the updated inter-camera tracking, you can start “tracking” as soon as the right person appeared in the frame.
Today, communication with users is directly embedded in the development process. Developers call up and meet with those who use video systems, and directly check on them what they have developed. And before starting to develop something new, they must communicate with at least 5 users and understand in detail what and in what form they need.
How to keep a balance of simplicity and functionality? How not to break away and not to remove something really useful and irreplaceable? To what extent can you simplify? For consumer products this face is not. But we must understand that consumer and professional products are different things, and we need to consider the approach to their development in different ways. Yes, a person who wants to leave by taxi is great for that just to press one button. But for a person who works with a professional security system, pushing one button is somehow not serious.
For business products, such as video surveillance software, the issue of simplification is dialectical. We must look for a balance of simplicity and functionality. This dialectic originated with our simplified interchamber tracking. We made a simple interface that allows unprepared people to build a trajectory, and for this purpose we included special hints in the function. And when the updated inter-camera tracking fell into the hands of professional users of security systems, they said that they didn’t need these clues at all and even hindered.
We may have made a mistake in inviting not professionals to test, but people from the street, because this is a highly specialized video analytics function that experts will use. On the other hand, we believe that inter-camera tracking is a solution that can fundamentally change the work with the archive for everyone, not just for professionals. Here you have a contradiction: on the one hand, we now clearly understand that inter-camera tracking is used only by professionals and must be done for them, on the other hand, we believe that this function can change the approach to working with the archive as a whole for ALL USERS.
There is no unequivocal answer to the question of the limit of simplicity, and there is no one correct recipe, otherwise everyone would use it.
If you need to simplify, but you do not want to give up functionality, you can divide the products.
One day, our key partner requested a Macroscop software update for a very large, serious project. It was necessary to implement a chat for communication of video system operators. When we started to make this function, we realized that it is very specific, and 99% of users will not need it. Then, for the first time, we thought about dividing the software into two different products, one of which will focus on simplicity and will be used by most of our users, the other, a specific product, will focus on functionality and be used in complex large video systems.
We decided that such a separation could be a good option for maintaining a balance of simplicity and functionality. A few months ago, we released a product for large-scale video systems Macroscop Ultra and decided to remove some of the existing functionality from the “regular” Macroscop.
The question of simplicity in product development remains open to us. The only right decision and unequivocal answer to the controversial dialectical questions “to what extent should we simplify?”, “How can we remain functional and useful product?”, “What audience should we focus on when simplifying?” We did not find. Perhaps because they are not, and each developer makes his decision. Nevertheless, today we see several ways of coming to simplicity:
1. To exclude all unclaimed features of the product. In this case, the decision to remove each function should be made based on feedback from direct users.
2. To leave all the functionality and at the same time globally work on the interface, trying to reduce the receipt of the desired result to the user to "pressing one button." At the same time, one should understand the whole degree of utopianism of this goal.
3. Split the product into several versions, focused on solving different problems and the use of different users.
Surprisingly, making the product easy for the user is very difficult. We understood this from our own experience when we faced questions that could not be answered with a definite answer:
• more importantly, simplicity or functionality?
• to what extent can the product be simplified?
• and to whom to be guided in the end when making changes?
Simplicity is hard
Of course, it was always clear to us that the product should be made simple for the user. This is confirmed by common sense and the experience of successful companies from various fields.
')
Look, for example, on Dropbox. Once, Macroscop CEO Artem Razumkov spoke with one of the creators of this service. He said that the idea of storing files in the cloud was known for a long time, and for this it was necessary to press the button only 1 time - download the file. What they invented is simply a transition from one click to zero clicks: a person simply puts the file in a regular folder and it is downloaded to the cloud automatically. The "download" button does not need to click! This simple idea of moving from 1 click to 0 clicks allowed them to soar to incredible heights. Here it is the power of simplicity!
Or Uber. Why did he become so popular? Because it is extremely simple for the user: no need to call and tell the operator where you are and where you are going, count the cash for the taxi driver and suffer from the exchange. You press exactly one button and a car comes to you. What could be simpler and more convenient ?!
But why then not all products are like Uber? The fact is that just make it very difficult. Some people think that simplicity is easy for everyone, but in fact simplicity is simple for users, but it is very hard for developers to do.
For example, Google. Google for the user is one search line, it is very simple. But the fact that, by entering a search query in this line, the user gets what they need, thousands of engineers, developers and researchers are working. It would be possible to insert a lot of different settings and filters that the user would have to twist in order for the search to give him what he needed, but Google engineers took it upon themselves. And in order for the user to have everything so simple, they implemented extremely complex technologies that understand and guess what search settings are implied.
How we simplify the product
Making it easy is difficult. It’s almost impossible to develop it right away. Therefore, the path to a user-friendly product most often goes through the simplification of something complicated, rather than creating something from scratch at once simple and convenient.
And to create a new, and to simplify our existing one recipe - do everything exclusively in conjunction with the user experience!
In one of the previous posts, we talked about how to create a new video analytics module - the function of inter-camera tracking. It allows you to track the trajectory of a person through multiple cameras video system. Initially, when the idea to create intercameral tracking appeared, we did not think about its convenience for users. We wanted to RELEASE the FUNCTION as many developers want. And at the initial stage, camera tracking was one of the search filters.
Initially, inter-camera tracking was one of the Macroscop search filters.
In Macroscop, there was a search by size, a search by signs, a search by place in the frame, and ... inter-camera tracking. Of course, it was illogical and inconvenient for the user. To activate inter-camera tracking, it was necessary to do some incredible manipulations: first, find a person whose trajectory you will build - to do this, set signs, paint a sample, find it in the archive; then, on one of the results, activate the interchamber tracking mode; then add samples there one by one manually. It was a long, difficult and absolutely not the way the user had to. And he had to “track”: to see the object on the screen and build a trajectory right there, right now, and not draw signs and paint the little people.
When we understood this and decided to work on convenience and simplicity, we formulated a goal: 7 out of 10 people who had not previously used the inter-camera tracking function and moreover are not professional users of video surveillance systems, but simply know how to work on a computer, should without oral prompts our side to solve the problem of building a trajectory. We went through several iterations of improvement, after each of which we invited 10 different users, put them at the computer and asked to solve this problem. And when 7 out of 10 “experimental” self-built trajectories, we decided that we made the inter-camera tracking really user friendly.
In the updated inter-camera tracking, you can start “tracking” as soon as the right person appeared in the frame.
Today, communication with users is directly embedded in the development process. Developers call up and meet with those who use video systems, and directly check on them what they have developed. And before starting to develop something new, they must communicate with at least 5 users and understand in detail what and in what form they need.
Such a different simplicity
How to keep a balance of simplicity and functionality? How not to break away and not to remove something really useful and irreplaceable? To what extent can you simplify? For consumer products this face is not. But we must understand that consumer and professional products are different things, and we need to consider the approach to their development in different ways. Yes, a person who wants to leave by taxi is great for that just to press one button. But for a person who works with a professional security system, pushing one button is somehow not serious.
For business products, such as video surveillance software, the issue of simplification is dialectical. We must look for a balance of simplicity and functionality. This dialectic originated with our simplified interchamber tracking. We made a simple interface that allows unprepared people to build a trajectory, and for this purpose we included special hints in the function. And when the updated inter-camera tracking fell into the hands of professional users of security systems, they said that they didn’t need these clues at all and even hindered.
We may have made a mistake in inviting not professionals to test, but people from the street, because this is a highly specialized video analytics function that experts will use. On the other hand, we believe that inter-camera tracking is a solution that can fundamentally change the work with the archive for everyone, not just for professionals. Here you have a contradiction: on the one hand, we now clearly understand that inter-camera tracking is used only by professionals and must be done for them, on the other hand, we believe that this function can change the approach to working with the archive as a whole for ALL USERS.
There is no unequivocal answer to the question of the limit of simplicity, and there is no one correct recipe, otherwise everyone would use it.
How to combine incompatible? Split!
If you need to simplify, but you do not want to give up functionality, you can divide the products.
One day, our key partner requested a Macroscop software update for a very large, serious project. It was necessary to implement a chat for communication of video system operators. When we started to make this function, we realized that it is very specific, and 99% of users will not need it. Then, for the first time, we thought about dividing the software into two different products, one of which will focus on simplicity and will be used by most of our users, the other, a specific product, will focus on functionality and be used in complex large video systems.
We decided that such a separation could be a good option for maintaining a balance of simplicity and functionality. A few months ago, we released a product for large-scale video systems Macroscop Ultra and decided to remove some of the existing functionality from the “regular” Macroscop.
There is no one right decision.
The question of simplicity in product development remains open to us. The only right decision and unequivocal answer to the controversial dialectical questions “to what extent should we simplify?”, “How can we remain functional and useful product?”, “What audience should we focus on when simplifying?” We did not find. Perhaps because they are not, and each developer makes his decision. Nevertheless, today we see several ways of coming to simplicity:
1. To exclude all unclaimed features of the product. In this case, the decision to remove each function should be made based on feedback from direct users.
2. To leave all the functionality and at the same time globally work on the interface, trying to reduce the receipt of the desired result to the user to "pressing one button." At the same time, one should understand the whole degree of utopianism of this goal.
3. Split the product into several versions, focused on solving different problems and the use of different users.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/308796/
All Articles