<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Don&#8217;t Make Your Products Too Simple</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tynerblain.com/blog/2007/03/23/dont-make-products-too-simple/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tynerblain.com/blog/2007/03/23/dont-make-products-too-simple/</link>
	<description>Software product success.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 20:46:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott Sehlhorst</title>
		<link>http://tynerblain.com/blog/2007/03/23/dont-make-products-too-simple/comment-page-1/#comment-529749</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott Sehlhorst</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:16:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tynerblain.com/blog/2007/03/23/dont-make-products-too-simple/#comment-529749</guid>
		<description>Thanks, Ivan!

I definitely agree that trying to design in the middle for &quot;both groups&quot; is the wrong way to go.  You&#039;ll be investing in capabilities one group does not value, and ignoring capabilities that the other group doesn&#039;t.  The only group you satisfy is the business (assuming you don&#039;t overdo it) - and you do that inefficiently.

What is important, as you point out, is designing for both groups, once they have reached a level of competency with your product - where that means different things to each group.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, Ivan!</p>
<p>I definitely agree that trying to design in the middle for &#8220;both groups&#8221; is the wrong way to go.  You&#8217;ll be investing in capabilities one group does not value, and ignoring capabilities that the other group doesn&#8217;t.  The only group you satisfy is the business (assuming you don&#8217;t overdo it) &#8211; and you do that inefficiently.</p>
<p>What is important, as you point out, is designing for both groups, once they have reached a level of competency with your product &#8211; where that means different things to each group.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Interesting finding - 03/26/2007 &#171; Another .NET Blog</title>
		<link>http://tynerblain.com/blog/2007/03/23/dont-make-products-too-simple/comment-page-1/#comment-83379</link>
		<dc:creator>Interesting finding - 03/26/2007 &#171; Another .NET Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:29:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tynerblain.com/blog/2007/03/23/dont-make-products-too-simple/#comment-83379</guid>
		<description>[...] Don’t Make Your Products Too Simple [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Don’t Make Your Products Too Simple [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ivan Chalif</title>
		<link>http://tynerblain.com/blog/2007/03/23/dont-make-products-too-simple/comment-page-1/#comment-83206</link>
		<dc:creator>Ivan Chalif</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:26:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tynerblain.com/blog/2007/03/23/dont-make-products-too-simple/#comment-83206</guid>
		<description>I have been &quot;fortunate&quot; enough to work on products that have two diverse user sets. One is a very technical IT user, while the other is the business user who in most situations is NOT technical at all. The technical user tends to be responsible for integration/configuration and custom development, so they want robust APIs and access to the command line. In some instances, once setup is complete, they are done, but in other situations, they may provide ongoing support or development. The business user requires a GUI with workflow and an easy-to-understand design metaphor. As the business user becomes more familiar with the application, they want access to more and more  advanced capabilities. 

My challenge is to provide an initial experience that meets the needs of both groups, and provides the business user with a learning curve that lets  them run things from the start, but also allows them to grow into the advanced capabilities. If they are overwhelmed by the user experience, they will become frustrated and that leads to lots of calls to Technical Support and/or abandonment of the application, both of which are undesireable.

I don&#039;t think you can just try to find the middle ground because that can keep you at a competitive disadvantage in the market and has the same problem of trying to satisfy too many users and ending up satisfying none.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have been &#8220;fortunate&#8221; enough to work on products that have two diverse user sets. One is a very technical IT user, while the other is the business user who in most situations is NOT technical at all. The technical user tends to be responsible for integration/configuration and custom development, so they want robust APIs and access to the command line. In some instances, once setup is complete, they are done, but in other situations, they may provide ongoing support or development. The business user requires a GUI with workflow and an easy-to-understand design metaphor. As the business user becomes more familiar with the application, they want access to more and more  advanced capabilities. </p>
<p>My challenge is to provide an initial experience that meets the needs of both groups, and provides the business user with a learning curve that lets  them run things from the start, but also allows them to grow into the advanced capabilities. If they are overwhelmed by the user experience, they will become frustrated and that leads to lots of calls to Technical Support and/or abandonment of the application, both of which are undesireable.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think you can just try to find the middle ground because that can keep you at a competitive disadvantage in the market and has the same problem of trying to satisfy too many users and ending up satisfying none.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

