When is the slow user experience better?

Original:50% slower but still a better experience?

Author:Martijn van Welie

Translator: Shan

Recently, one of my iphone colleagues showed me how to set an alarm clock on the iphone. He really liked it as much as I saw it at first sight. I took out my Nokia phone and compared it to it. My feeling is that the iphone's alarm solution "feels" better, but Nokia's scheme may actually be better in terms of usability (usability) and effectiveness (effectiveness). Still, the iphone's solution seems to have found a perfect balance between usability and interest. This makes it more fun than the Nokia scheme. So at some point, sacrificing usability to get fun is the right choice? Is this what the so-called "user experience" is all about?

Here is the interface between the two:

Let's take a closer look at these two cases ...

The iphone Solution

The iphone uses a wheel approach, just like the old code we all know. In order to set the time, you need to specify the hand on the 3 rollers. If you've chosen a 24-hour system, you don't have to use the AM/PM wheel. I got 3 of my iphone colleagues to do some time testing. Let them each set 10 times alarm, the result is that they need an average of 10.2 seconds to set up to complete an alarm clock. This includes the "Add alarm" step. The main reason for spending a long time setting is that their fingers have to be adjusted several times on the wheel to accurately locate the correct number, and then locate the second one when it is finished. If you only want to adjust the alarm for half an hour, the test time will be shortened, because you are lucky to only need to adjust a wheel.

Nokia's Solutions

Nokia's solution is more straightforward. You can simply use the keyboard to type the time. The time spent is always relatively consistent, probably 4 times of keystrokes, because Nokia phones have the same keyboard layout. I did a similar test on the other 3 familiar Nokia phones at the same time. The same set of 10 alarm, the average only need 6.7 seconds. 3.5 seconds faster than working with an iphone colleague. In fact, the gap should be greater, because it takes 1.5 seconds for the confirmation to be displayed, and the next input cannot be made during that time. That means the iphone is 50% slower than Nokia's to complete the task! It looks a bit much ...

Usability vs User experience?

Mathematically, Nokia's schemes have won in the competition. Still, the iphone offers a better user experience, and it seems that all iphone users are very happy with it. No one complains, even praises! So is a better user experience worth 50% faster than completing a task?

Referring to the "official" definition of usability, whether or not the task is completed is a very important factor, but not the only factor. Learning, memory, number of errors, and subjective satisfaction are all part of usability. So the so-called "subjective satisfaction" is prompting us to want to improve the user experience of setting alarms? It seems to be true that this seems to be the conclusion that task completion times can sometimes be sacrificed to enhance the user experience.

When is the slow user experience better?

The difference between the two tasks in this case is significant, but the task itself is very simple. You don't have to do it many times a day, and sometimes you don't have to change it even for a week. I have the following views on the case to improve the user experience by sacrificing the task completion time:

• Tasks occur infrequently, perhaps once a day or once a week.
• The total task completion time is relatively short, and the time difference between tasks is tolerable relative to the number of times the task occurs.
• Users tend to enjoy the fun rather than being more efficient in less frequent tasks.

This brings us to more interesting questions: When will the balance between the task completion time and the user experience be broken? Maybe it's when the task doesn't happen very often, but how often does it happen? I don't know, maybe someone needs to do more experiments.