Jeff Latz

Software may be eating the world, and I don’t think this is an entirely bad thing. With relatively low overhead, software, especially web software, is a great field to take lots of risks in. But I think it is potentially problematic that a whole school of user experience thought has grown out of designing web pages. I learned most of what I understand about user experience from the web software world, but now as I try to develop software with a motion capture-based interface, I’m finding the user experience challenges to be very different than those that web designers and developers deal with. Conversely, I think that anyone building web software would benefit from a broader understanding of user experience.

In web software, the interface needs to provide the user the right information in an easily digestible layout so they know where to click and what to type. Users generally already know how to click and type; in a sense most of this problem is already solved for us. But with a motion capture-based interface, users need to be guided on how to move their bodies. Though moving your body is often touted as being “more natural” than clicking and typing, guiding users is actually harder in this case — there are many more possible ways to move the human body than there are to click and type. Users must be taught to choose a smaller subset of all the possible options available, and will get tired if they have to move too much.

Sure enough, during one of the breaks at emTech, I found myself chatting with two other engineers who had worked in automotive and manufacturing fields, and they were casually bantering about human factors — user experience where the users aren’t sitting front of computers. Instead, they’re driving cars or working on assembly lines. These interfaces have to be much more efficient because on the road and on the assembly line, noticing something a second too late can cause serious accidents. And unlike software interfaces, they generally require the users to reach and grab things. In terms of user effort and attention, reaching for a lever is far more expensive than hitting a keyboard shortcut, or even reaching for the mouse.

So with all due respect to infographic artists and web designers, I’ve got a hunch that people in these other fields have a more thorough understanding of how to convey information to humans quickly and efficiently and I’ll be perusing the appropriate sections of MIT Open Courseware.

In any business, conventional wisdom says the first customer is always the hardest to get. The prevalence of social and location based applications and proliferation of like, tweet, and digg buttons highlight this challenge even more in the eyes of today’s entrepreneurs. Indeed, many of the conversations I had at YCNYC last night echoed this sentiment.

But perhaps the “first customer problem” is only a problem in the eye of the beholder. If we think of having no (or few) customers as a problem, we’ll miss the opportunities that it offers as well. Or as Trey would say, obstacles are stepping stones.

This became clear to me because for the project I’m working on, the opportunities are huge. I’m building music software - a tool for creating new music - and musicians of all abilities and stylistic persuasions are always searching for new sounds, new ideas, and new ways to express themselves. My product will open up new creative possibilities and help them to be different, and early adopters will be especially unique.

How does this principle apply to your product? Ask yourself about your users’ desire to differentiate themselves from their peers. Every person has this need. America especially is a highly individualistic society with a profound reverence for breaking the rules at the right time. How will your product help them distinguish themselves? Any product value of this nature is extra valuable if they’re the first to benefit from it. And you had better emphasize this to counteract all the obvious disadvantages of having no/few customers.