Making a product is different from making a function. The pursuit of making a product is the final result orientation, while making a function only depends on the degree of completion.
Write in front
Although the process of making a product and making a function is the same, the final output results are completely different. One is result-oriented, pushing the product to iterate in an orderly manner, while the other is forever wandering until the physical exertion is exhausted. At the end of the day, I don’t know what a drum heart looks like when I die.
The difference between making a function and making a product
Different goals
The goal of the function pursuit is to complete (Y) and become (Y). This function means that I have already obtained 100 EXP! One step closer to the next ability advancement.
The goal of making a product is to solve user problems. After this function is implemented, what is the feedback from users, what is the data, and whether it has achieved the expected effect.
Work awareness is different
The mentality of making a function is to complete the task: if the demand is lobbying like this, then we will do it like this; anyway, I have submitted the requirements and drawings, and the subsequent development will be done well, and finally I will check and accept it; the function is online, no What’s the matter with me, I’ll think about the next function; I will compromise on any difficulties in development, until I successfully cut a house demand into a pile of straw nests that can barely sleep; I think users will buy it, but in fact, I have already been Suggestion, deviated from the actual track of the user, and finally made a toy.
A person who can make a good product must have a sense of ownership. What is a sense of ownership? You find a typo on the printed graduation thesis, and you cannot tolerate the pollution of this detail to your vision of a perfect graduation, so ignore any troubles and obstacles, and reprint a copy. No typos.
The longing for a perfect graduation is like the pursuit of satisfying users’ pain points. The inability to tolerate typos in the graduation thesis is equivalent to the compromise of the expected effect of the core functions. There are difficulties in development, and the realization ideas can be changed without affecting the final expected effect.
Work differently
The way to perform functions is to rely on people. Just like the Great Leap Forward, people rely too much on the power of people. No matter how daring people are and how productive the land is, they will end up in a mess and starve to death. During the test, you put a knife around her neck and let her take a good test, don’t pull a single detail, but she doesn’t even know your needs, and even nine lives won’t be enough to cut.
Making products depends on methods, and methods are more reliable than people . Land has become a contract system, everyone’s enthusiasm has increased, and grain output has also increased.
During the testing process, you detail the requirements rules one by one, and then write test cases according to your requirements, which greatly improves the testing efficiency and quality; during the operation configuration process, you formulate content configuration specifications, which greatly improves the consistency of product experience. It reduces the learning cost of users; in the process of configuring the robot personality, you abandon the low-cost manual addition method, but use the method of calling the template through the program to make its image more consistent.
What factors lead to the product being made functional
The psychological comfort zone makes it easy to ignore the potential value of technology
The psychological comfort zone will drive us to do some things within our ability, although these things are a bit cumbersome, and avoid some unknowns outside our ability, although that may be a shortcut.
We will always choose those plans with a lot of discounts compared with expectations because of obstacles such as poor development and implementation of this place, because it seems to be more controllable, and if the development is well implemented, it will definitely be completed.
There was a case of conditional search before. The expectation of the product is that when users use multiple conditions to search without results, users can delete those conditions that lead to no results and search again; but due to the development, the conditions with no results cannot be identified. , and finally chose a discounted plan: users can delete some conditions and search again.
After discounting, the problem is that there is no result in the deletion, so there is still no result after deletion, and the whole re-search experience is completely cut off and becomes unavailable.
Confused by the form, unable to see the specific problem to be solved
Among the five elements of user experience, the one we are most likely to focus on is form.
How to design or optimize a function, the easiest thing to think about is to see what the form of others is, and then change its appearance to complete a function design or iteration.
We are always used to stagnant at the feeling level, wanting to feel the same as competing products, and then spend a lot of time and energy entangled in such a feeling, and have no time to consider the specific problem to be solved.
Designing function from form will give us an illusion, as if we are designing products for tens of thousands of users. In fact, it is only a toy to satisfy ourselves .
Sitting in the greenhouse and looking at competing products and YY will not be able to do a good job of encouraging products, because the focus is always on the form.
Going the process without a brain, you can’t start with the end, and you can only touch the water in the end
In the chapter on Design Psychology Errors, Norman analyzed that when dealing with familiar work-flows, it is automatic and does not require the intervention of the reflection layer. For example, when we are browsing news, click on the hot spot -> scroll down to browse -> swipe right The return->click hotspot is an automated work-flow and calls this phenomenon a brainless experience .
Brainless experience is the conditional instinct of our physiology to seek comfort and avoid physical exertion.
Tactical diligence to conceal strategic laziness is the specific manifestation of brainless experience at work. After doing it for a long time, it is easy to regard yourself as an output machine. As long as you give me an input source, I will pry the earth. In other words, as long as you try hard enough.
If you are not result-oriented, draw clear boundaries, and follow the process blindly, it is impossible to do things well, because human energy is limited and you can barely cover everything, but you can only scratch the surface.
On the other hand, the YY behavior of products that lack data awareness always uses their own feelings to perform functions. When they are thirsty, they also feel that others are thirsty, so they take Ice Coke as their first demand.
Don’t make products into personal toys, we need to feel personal, observe the phenomenon, analyze the problems behind the phenomenon, and finally deduce the product conclusion supported by data.
Pursue a harmonious team atmosphere
A certain detail fails to meet your expectations, and the other party says that this detail is not easy to do, what should I do? Either force him to do it, or lower his own standards, so that he can still be a brother. Hello everyone, that’s great.
In practice, it is easy for us to choose the latter, because it will make everyone happy, and the users who are unhappy, so we derive “optimization in the next iteration” to comfort our sinful little minds.
A team is not a home, not a place to live. Family and prosperity cannot be used as the rule of harmony. On the contrary, a team is a place to do things together. How to do things well should be the standard of doing things. Any violation of this standard is like destruction. The home in the family, like the prosperity of all things, should not be tolerated.
The standard is too low, euphemistically called “data-driven”
The biggest misunderstanding that the principle of minimum viable product (MVP) brings to Deadline under the pressure is to go up first and then talk about it. It turns out that after going up, there is not much data at all. It is a pity to abandon it. It’s almost impossible to turn around, and you can only drag to death in the end.
Why not scrutinize the product before the first version goes live, but leave the blame to the data , knowing that this function is very bad, but waiting for verification, isn’t it ridiculous? I saw a person interviewing a company on Maimai before. The person in charge of the company gave an example of how they were data-driven. They found two obvious poor and a slightly normal plan to put together for AB test, and found a slightly normal comparison. it is good. Data-driven is not a simple process. It is based on the fact that you polish the product carefully at the beginning, and then use data means to discover blind spots that you have not noticed before.
Working alone, not good at falsehoods
In the process of dealing with things, people will encounter two limits: limited wisdom and limited energy. In the process of fighting alone, due to limited wisdom, it is easy to step on blind spot mines, and finally the product is made into a personal toy; due to limited energy, it can only be left and right, and it will never be able to do things. , can only be beat on the drum side.
A gentleman is not different, and he is good at things. The reason why a gentleman is higher than ordinary people is because he can make good use of external things. Being good at using existing conditions is an important way for a gentleman to succeed. We must be good at making more use of the existing group wisdom to think about ourselves, discover blind spots, and help us produce high-standard MVP solutions.
Summary: Avoid making a product into a function
1. Use your own and other people’s products more. Don’t limit yourself to product designers who are only working days. If you really love your products, you want to open them the moment you open your eyes. Only by using it more can it be possible to discover hidden opportunities that others cannot see.
2. Seek the situation, don’t blame people, don’t expect a person to have the size of the universe, and solve the fundamental problems from the system and process, instead of blaming people for not doing well enough when a problem occurs.
3. Provide transformative solutions for the experience of core (MVP) functions from a technical perspective, and transfer the inherent complexity to technology, so that users can don’t make me think.
4. Pay more attention to the problem and less entanglement with the form. The essence of making a certain feeling is to make a toy, which is very dangerous.
5. Begin with the end in mind, and selectively carry out in-depth output according to the expected goals. It is more valuable to do one thing well than everything.
6. Data runs through the entire product design process. Target data should be set at the beginning of product design. What kind of product design can help us achieve such target data.
7. The team is the place where things are done. If the family and everything cannot be done, everyone may not be really good, and they may starve to death in the end.
8. Don’t artificially lower the product launch standards because of your own laziness. If you can do things well at one time, why do you have to do the next issue? MVP doesn’t teach us how to be lazy.
9. Taking advantage of the collective wisdom will help us to produce a higher standard MVP solution, while behind closed doors, it may be some unsuitable spare parts.
