Detail Pie vs Big Stripe product design who has the advantage

In 2009, I was invited to audit blog New message system planning discussion. It was mentioned that when replying to comments in the message center, if only the window to tell "successful", is not friendly, users may also go to the log to confirm the success of the return. Better to be happy, the reply is directly in the message center, and the style of comment block consistent. I supported that view at the time.

The idea was rejected by engineers from a technical level, and the details were skipped. The final compromise is that the reply content can be hung in the message center, but the style and comment block (multi-level reply) is inconsistent, only hanging level, which is equivalent to regenerating a static hint, to facilitate you to confirm the "reply has been successful." This, of course, consumes additional research and development time.

That year, the rise of Sina Weibo, gradually changed the entire Chinese internet ecology. Replying to comments at the microblogging message center, or forwarding the content on the microblog list page, is just a window tip success. Is it not friendly enough? Yes, I often click one more time to confirm the reply or forward the result. However, the impact of this little experience loss on Sina micro-Bochon the world is ... Zero。 That being the case, why did the blogger spend extra time on research and development to tangle with this detail?

Second trivia about PIICTU, this innovative app since May, the focus of the continuous improvement, I tried a few days after the failure, no matter how the map can not be refreshed. At that time also sneer at PIICTU to the network environment requirements too high, suddenly back to God, is it I test "disruptive behavior" when the system dragged black? Sign up for a new number look, wipe! The new number is normal. Like this to drag black users without any hint, I believe that most of the interaction, with research, PM intolerable things, but piictu so justly dry. Bite it, who care?

There are several common explanations for this:

★ Detail Pie

-even small details are pleasant and can surprise users and enhance their reliance on products

-In the intense competition, the core experience is easy to be homogeneous, when the detail becomes the balance that decides the user inclination degree

★ Big Stripe

-Core functionality needs to be pulled into detail, non-core features are not necessary

-Backbone process, frequent application scenarios need to pull the details, branching process and occasional situation is not necessary

On the surface, this is a bipartisan dispute between the details and the big one. We often praise "the details of success or failure", but also often curse others to dig details too boring, but these two extremes often from the same person's mouth, only the time zone is different, let you think he is a lunatic! In other words, the attention to detail does not depend on personal preference, the key is situational judgment. Many people in the industry commented on my microblog:

"Products are for users to use, of course, to the user's needs as the standard." To be self-righteous standard to do a product, is tantamount to behind closed doors. Make products, at least to read human nature. ”

"Products should first be useful, usable, and then easy-to-use, want to use, and now many people jump directly to the last 2 steps or even 1 steps." Ni don't want to think whether this thing can use, to get a P user experience. ”

"Do product research to divergence and divergence, think of various possible directions, do product design to shrink and shrink, focus on doing the most attractive user functions." ”

"Product experience tends to become a few people buried in pursuit of perfection, users do not feel." In the general direction of grasping users really need to be more critical. ”

"The details determine success or failure, when the foundation has been done well." It's hard to talk about the details. Besides, not all the details are worth repeated. ”

Do these words make a lot of sense?

Unfortunately, all the sugar syrup does not help us solve practical problems. In the event of a dispute, everyone will think that their views are most representative of the user's needs. Even if the "core function, the backbone of the process" to reach a consensus, this part of which details should be dug, which should not be dug, will be noisy in full swing. What is "the user really needs"? What is the "repeated detail"? Both sides could not wait to pick up the Rockets Hao quickly to kill each other. After all, the details of the subjective personality than the objective consensus, if each dispute to do user research, data Mining, AB test to solve, will be the product design into a long, huff tug of war.

If I send micro-blog said: "The product to dig into the details of this thing, if it is their own to do, will be complacent in every possible way with the user care; if someone else asked to do it, he would curse him boring, nit-picking. ”

Once again, I would like to review the experience of senior executives from a large foreign technology company. "The efficiency of the product project is very low," he said, "and I took a person out of the group." Still low? Then take another one. Seeing the efficiency Biubiu. "Yes ah, no one to quarrel with you, arm wrestling, to dig the details of the efficiency of course greatly improved."

The idea of this experience is that there is no way to solve the details of the "personality dispute", but to ensure that the backbone of the right basis, the details of the decision to give the right to the unity of opinion of individuals or factions. In product project management, the fewer people involved in making the details, the quicker the progress; the more people, the more the opinions. Two very different methods may be correct, even if there is a mistake, the effect of the difference is often small. But the conflict of many personalities leads to the inefficiency of decision, and the multiple personality superposition leads to the overload of product demand--most of them have zero effect on the final success or failure. Their existence is only in the sense that designers feel that this is integrated into my personality, my style, my product view of personal works. That's all.

How boring it is.

In other words, if the project needs to fully mobilize the enthusiasm of the designer, so that its full devotion, of course, must respect his personality. For example, Joe Don must carve a beautiful logo on the MAC board, and look at Google App logo color level is quite uncomfortable, such as Cameron filming "Titanic", insisted on buying expensive European porcelain as a prop (smashed), said so brilliant field harmony. Obviously, these ideas are a little paranoid, but if you limit the paranoia of genius, you won't be able to exert great creativity. For mortals, too.

Since the second quarter, I have been leading the album app. This is the department's first mobile application and involves complex cross-sectoral cooperation. To be cautious, the product design includes, in addition to me, the iOS and Android versions of PM, the occasional support interaction and visual designer, and the engineers will advise. The whole project process is full of noisy, a variety of product view of the scuffle, although the final decision by me, but the view is negative people often unhappy.

On one occasion, I said to the two-version pm, in fact, I rarely oppose your two-bit ideas at the same time. I am against the M June when, W June mostly support me, I am opposed to W June, m June most support me. The right and wrong have nothing to do with the success or failure, most of the experience details of the personality judgments. But I am the one who made the decision, so the target is me, and the common impression is that I am a (jerk) (villain) boss who suppresses your play. The muzzle is consistent with the external.

The two of them laughed.

I sighed again and said, my level is higher than you, experience is richer than you, since this project is led by me in the first line, of course, it is my words. The issue of the cardinal we let go of the controversy, the details of the dispute for the moment listen to me, or who want to do what effect all to add, or noisy consensus on the drag, this progress will be as heavy as lead block. Until the end of the year, into a relatively safe development phase, and then by your respective independently, I take a backseat. Isn't that reasonable?

Reasonable to reasonable, because the details of the personality is active, and often rejected, 85 after the enthusiasm of young people still hit hard. One of them told me that it was a job, ha, a job.

So silent, expressionless, heart a little regret the original stall so big. In particular, when no one has done the app, the project will not become more safe because of the number of people, only because of a lot of people and confusion, and then the implementation of the decline is severe. On every product surface (such as app design), there is not only one decision maker, preferably one or two participants. The premise of ensuring product execution is not that people play Tigers, but the team composition of tacit understanding. Because "tacit understanding" itself is a very difficult thing, "streamlined number" has become the most effective way to maintain tacit understanding.

It is almost inevitable to add some details that are not absolutely necessary in a product design, even if the details are "absolutely necessary" and the scale control varies from person to person. Who doesn't have a little bit of personality? In order to avoid the loss of efficiency and detail overload caused by inconsistent personality, it is usually only by streamlining the team to achieve, avoid disputes, with rapid action to counteract the potential error rate. The mutual trust of the entrepreneurial team, at this point is often more than the power distribution intertwined large companies have a greater advantage.

And Peers said, "Product managers should be more concerned about the logic, there is no need to be in the page, interaction above the dead." "is tantamount to giving the interaction designer full discretion." It's a good thing to do, but it's going to fit several prerequisites:

1, interactive designers long-term research on this product, the user group characteristics have a deeper understanding

2, interactive Designer to participate in this project for a long time, to respond to demand

3, interaction designers and product managers have a certain running-in experience, with a more tacit understanding

4, interactive Designer's ability can be trusted

As far as I know, meet the above four points of product project environment, less than 10% in the industry. Trust is not a thing that falls in the sky, but grows in the proper soil. The "soil" itself depends mostly on the "system" and the individual's power is hard to change. Therefore, a more pragmatic approach is to streamline the team, strengthen personal responsibility and reduce differences. A lot of advice to listen to the opinion is correct, but in the specific participation, decision-making in the product surface only few few people. Product design "brainstorming" evolved into "Manto", not uncommon, why Nan?

As one of my tweets says: "The best way to do this is to be complementary to the big picture and to be able to do it in detail." The worst way to cooperate is that the overall situation is consistent, the results of the blind spot coincide, and then in detail noisy, each of them angrily adhere to the "details determine success or failure."