Skip to main content

The Difference Between Good and Bad User Experience

I had a bit of an internal debate this week about what to write. Several things were occupying my mind. In the end, I've decided to move from the important to the mundane for this post. Well, it can't be serious all the time!

I've been fortunate enough to own all three generations of Xbox; the original, the 360 and the One. They're the only 'Windows' machines I own (go Linux!). I wanted a games console that I could indulge in "couch co-op" with my mates and when I saw Halo, I was suitably blown away. "That's the one for me!", I thought. The rest is history and all three machines still run.

About two months ago, I took the plunge, and got an Xbox One. While there's no doubt the hardware is superior to the 360, I have to honestly say my impression of the machine is "meh...". Really and truly "meh". This, I think is purely down to the interface and the user experience (UX). My impression, and yours may be different, is that the interface is so damned fiddly and hotchpotch that it completely ruins the UX. I should declare straight away that I use the machines primarily for gaming; I keep my gaming and work separate. I occasionally use the 'ancillary' functions, but not often. My telly (TV) usually takes care of that perfectly fine.

The interface for the One reminds me of the problems in UX that plagued most of the release of Windows versions on PC: namely, the functions that you'd been used to are moved around on the release of a new Windows version. This was particularly true of the Windows 7 launch, but has plagued the release of every version that I can remember, right back to Windows 3. You're left feeling "I know that Windows does this, but I'm screwed if I can find it!". Menus nested within menus and options moved, seemingly randomly, between menus.

This nesting of menus and options results in a poor UX effect. Why? Well, for me, I want to switch the Xbox on, sign in, load a game and go. What I get is a lot of fiddling and fart-arsing around and trying to find various options. "Bah". This may seem trivial, but when I compare this with the UX on the 360 it becomes how obviously poor the UX is on the One. I'm able to start the 360, load the DVD and just play the game. The comparison between the two UI's is what leaves me with the "meh" feeling.

As I've declared above, I'm no wild fan of Microsoft, but I did like the original "Metro" interface. I grudgingly admired the design; tiles, colours and general usability across platforms, including the phones (remember those?). I thought that it was totally unsuitable for non-touch PC's, but you can't have everything. After all, screens are square-shaped, it made sense that the tiles were also square. "Damned good try", I thought.

The 360 "Metro" UI was easy to figure out. Pretty much everything that I might want to do was under the appropriately labelled menu: easy. To navigate, click the bumpers and press the joystick on the controller and there you are. Contrast this with the One; nested menus with loads of options or sub-menus. Not good. Add to that, I often choose a button to initiate an action, and the damned thing does something else! Usually, it's back to where I came from without performing the action I wanted. Grrr! Very frustrating. Heck, don't even start me on the tiny, almost hidden Home menu. What is with that? I shouldn't have to consciously think about what I need to do to get 'Home'. Again, not good.

This is my main thrust here; I think that good UI design and by association, a good UX is the ability of the UI to engender a feeling of being able to do things without the involvement of conscious thought. You just know what to do. There is no need to make me think about how to achieve something in the UI.

I know that the "Don't make me think!" is not a new idea and others have articulated it way before me. (See "Don't make me Think", Krug Steve, New Riders. 3rd Ed. 2013) but it makes one heck of a lot of sense to me. This feeling of having to make me think is prevalent on the One; not so on the 360 and that's what (in my opinion) makes for a poor UX.

I'm additionally convinced that this is because Microsoft forgot that most people bought an Xbox One to use primarily as a games machine. No, rather, they thought that they could take over the sitting room (lounge) getting everyone to take their entertainment via the Xbox. Well, it didn't work out like that; what with smart TV's, TiVo, streaming services etc. The Xbox is one in a plethora of devices designed to keep us happy with the 'bread and circuses' show. In order to fulfil their goal, Microsoft crammed in a whole bunch of functions that tried to be all things to all men and submerged the gaming functions of the very capable One. Thus, you end up with a hotchpotch UI that delivers a muddled UX. No such issue with the 360, where non-gaming functions are secondary to actually playing games.

In conclusion, there is light at the end of the tunnel. I've read on several news and rumours Web-sites that Microsoft have mentioned that they intend to make their new console, Project Scorpio, behave "more like the 360". Well, if you're reading Microsoft (which I doubt) then; good on ya! If you manage to pull that off, I for one, will be damned happy. I'll be genuinely enthused by the whole console in the hope that I'll get a good UX again.

Just one more thing if you're there, keep the publishers interested in providing "couch co-op". There are a lot of us 'old gits' around using your consoles and we like it. Beer, pretzels and BS with your mates. Great.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Phyrric Victories and Losses

Note: I had intended to post this article last week, but unfortunately I was unable, due to many appointments that I was obliged to keep. I'm 'late to the party' with this comment, but I hope that you'll consider it anyway. Thank you for your patience. An Historical Introduction Phyrrus of Epirus (c.318 - 272 BC) was a classical Greek General who won a costly victory at the Battle of Asculum. This is now referred to as a "Phyrric Victory" since he was quoted (by Plutarch) as saying: If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined. (Sorry for the hideous paraphrasing.) Phyrric Victories and Losses The General Election on the previous Thursday was labelled as what is referred to as a "snap election", since it was called by the Prime Minister at six weeks notice, which is a very short time as far as General Elections go. The result of the election was bizarre to say the least. To bring in Phyrrus...

Thirty Years Too Early

I was born 'out of time'; that's to say, thirty years too early. When growing up, I had an eclectic mind. I was interested in a lot of subjects and was fascinated by finding how lessons in one subject could be applied to a completely different subject. I loved exploring the connections. This meant that I pursued many subjects and didn't really concentrate on one to the exclusion to all else. I continued that throughout my higher education and try to do as much of this as I can in my working life.  My biggest successes at work have been when I can combine knowledge across sometimes disparate subjects to design innovative solutions and it's the part of work I enjoy most: It really doesn't feel like work. At least two of my bosses have commented that my chief skill is "...seeing connections that other people don't see..." (I paraphrase). The problem for me, is that I get to do so little of this kind of 'work'. Modern IT is still very silo-...

Adverts, Adverts; All The Way Down

Talking Heads Over the recent months and years we've seen many talking heads from the Web and advertising companies telling us that if we want 'free' services and 'apps' on the Web then we're going to have to accept advertising as the price for this. The increasing numbers of users employing various "ad-blockers" in their browsers are portrayed somehow as "evil" and are denying these companies a legitimate source of revenue. They warn users that if you deny this revenue stream then you'll have to pay, they argue. OK, I get it. Running and hosting Web sites doesn't come for free and most Web companies aren't charities; someone has to pay for it. There are many worthy Web sites out there that are run on a shoestring and use advertising as a way of 'keeping the lights on', as it were. However, if they and the advertising companies are wondering why more users are deploying ad-blockers and revenue is flattening out, then...