Adding a UI doesn't automatically simplify a complex system. While a UI might seem more approachable than an API or command line, it can obscure underlying complexity and create a false sense of ease. If the underlying system is convoluted, the UI will simply become a complicated layer on top of an already complicated system, potentially making it even harder to use effectively. True simplification comes from addressing the complexity within the system itself, not just providing a different way to access it. A well-designed UI for a simple system is powerful, but a UI for a complex system might just make it a prettier mess.
Jeremy Mikkola's blog post, "A UI might not make it easier," delves into the complexities of introducing user interfaces for tasks that were previously handled through alternative methods, such as direct communication with a service provider. He argues that while a self-serve user interface might appear, at first glance, to simplify processes and empower users, it can inadvertently introduce new challenges and ultimately complicate the user experience.
Mikkola uses the specific example of requesting custom research. Initially, clients would email their requests directly to a research team. This method, while seemingly less structured, allowed for nuanced communication and clarification. The research team could engage in a dialogue with the client, asking probing questions to fully understand the request and ensure the delivered research aligned with the client's specific needs. This back-and-forth facilitated a deeper understanding of often complex and multifaceted research objectives.
The introduction of a user interface aimed to streamline this process by providing clients with a structured format for submitting their research requests. However, this seemingly simple solution introduced unforeseen complications. The structured nature of the UI, while intended to provide clarity, often restricted the client's ability to fully articulate the nuances of their request. The rigid input fields and predefined options could not accommodate the inherent complexities of some research projects. Furthermore, the lack of direct interaction with the research team eliminated the valuable opportunity for clarifying questions and iterative refinement of the research parameters.
Mikkola explains that this rigidity can lead to clients contorting their requests to fit within the confines of the UI, potentially resulting in research that doesn't fully address their actual needs. He highlights the crucial role of human interaction and contextual understanding in certain service-based interactions, arguing that a seemingly straightforward UI can inadvertently obscure the essential dialogue required for a successful outcome. The post suggests that organizations should carefully consider the trade-offs before implementing self-serve UIs, recognizing that a more direct, communication-focused approach may ultimately be more effective and efficient for certain complex tasks. The ease of building a UI should not overshadow the potential for it to complicate the user experience and diminish the quality of the service provided.
Summary of Comments ( 1 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43471135
Hacker News users largely agreed with the article's premise that self-serve UIs aren't always the best solution. Several commenters shared anecdotes of complex UIs causing more problems than they solved, forcing users into tedious configurations or overwhelming them with options. Some suggested that good documentation and clear examples are often more effective than intricate interfaces. Others pointed out the importance of considering the user's technical skill and the specific task at hand when designing interfaces, arguing for simpler, more guided experiences for less technical users. A few commenters also discussed the trade-off between flexibility and ease of use, acknowledging that powerful UIs can be valuable for expert users while remaining accessible to beginners. The idea of "no-code" solutions was also debated, with some arguing they often introduce limitations and can be harder to debug than traditional coding approaches.
The Hacker News post "A UI might not make it easier" (linking to an article about the potential downsides of self-serve UIs) generated a moderate amount of discussion with several compelling points raised.
Several commenters agreed with the author's premise, sharing their own experiences where supposedly "easy" self-serve UIs actually made tasks more complex. One commenter highlighted how self-serve checkouts at grocery stores often lead to frustration and delays, particularly for unexpected situations like weighing produce or applying coupons. This resonated with other users who pointed to similar issues with self-service kiosks in various settings. The underlying theme of these comments was that self-serve UIs often shift the burden of specialized knowledge and problem-solving onto the user, which can be detrimental when the user lacks that knowledge or encounters edge cases.
Another commenter expanded on this idea, suggesting that the perceived ease of use of self-serve UIs is often an illusion. While they may simplify common tasks for expert users, they can create barriers for novice or infrequent users who are unfamiliar with the specific interface and its underlying logic. This can lead to increased error rates and frustration. They argued that good UI design should consider the full spectrum of users, not just the most technically proficient.
One commenter pushed back slightly against the article's premise, pointing out that self-serve UIs can be incredibly empowering for users who want more control and flexibility. They acknowledged the potential downsides mentioned by others but argued that the benefits of autonomy and accessibility often outweigh them. They suggested that the key is to design self-serve UIs that are both powerful and user-friendly, catering to both novice and expert users.
A few other comments focused on the economic incentives behind self-serve UIs. One commenter cynically suggested that many companies implement self-serve options primarily to reduce labor costs, rather than to improve the customer experience. This prompted further discussion about the ethical implications of shifting labor burdens onto customers under the guise of convenience.
Finally, some commenters discussed the specific examples used in the original article, debating the merits and drawbacks of self-serve baggage check-in and online banking. These comments provided concrete examples of how the principles discussed in the thread apply in real-world situations.
Overall, the comments on the Hacker News post offer a nuanced perspective on the trade-offs associated with self-serve UIs. While acknowledging the potential benefits of empowerment and accessibility, they also highlight the potential for increased complexity, frustration, and hidden costs for users. The discussion emphasizes the importance of thoughtful UI design that considers the needs of all users and prioritizes genuine ease of use over superficial simplicity.