This was actually not the conclusion I was expecting:
> Don't bother improving your product unless it results in visible changes the user can see, find, and hopefully appreciate.
I couldn't disagree more strongly. I can't think of the last time I encountered a UX change I thought was actually worth it. They're always bothersome, because now I notice the tool--it's no longer an extension of my mind and body, instead all of a sudden it's something getting in the way of my work.
I claim there are two reasons UX changes happen:
(1) Original design was delivered too hastily and was flawed, requiring breaking changes in the field to fix it.
(2) Someone wants to get promoted and thinks the best way to do that is to spin a "UX refresh" as something "successful" rather than the signal of abject failure it actually is. We should stop rewarding this behavior.
> Don't bother improving your product unless it results in visible changes the user can see, find, and hopefully appreciate.
I couldn't disagree more strongly. I can't think of the last time I encountered a UX change I thought was actually worth it. They're always bothersome, because now I notice the tool--it's no longer an extension of my mind and body, instead all of a sudden it's something getting in the way of my work.
I claim there are two reasons UX changes happen:
(1) Original design was delivered too hastily and was flawed, requiring breaking changes in the field to fix it.
(2) Someone wants to get promoted and thinks the best way to do that is to spin a "UX refresh" as something "successful" rather than the signal of abject failure it actually is. We should stop rewarding this behavior.