When designing products with the team recently, because the current orientation is to provide some bottom-level scene tools for various business parties, I am often asked by some friends from other teams: your solution is too complicated, no one will use. The category email list cost of getting started is too high, and I don't think the plan is feasible. Therefore, I thought and discussed with my teammates for a long time, thinking about how to simplify the plan so that category email list everyone can use it, but found that no matter from which angle the plan is simplified, there are always some scenarios that I thought of before that cannot be covered, and the expansion of the overall plan.
Sex will also be greatly reduced. At present, there is a lot of uncertainty in our overall business development, so the expansion of the system in the later stage category email list must be high. After thinking about it for a while, I found that we actually fell into a very strange thinking: a good product must be a product that everyone thinks is easy to get started, and category email list the cost of understanding and use is not high. The book "Don't make me think" mentions a lot about how to make a product simple and ready to use. But think carefully, is this type of product suitable for products with a particularly deep level of business involvement and complex business logic.
To broaden our thinking, we expand the concept of Internet products to system software, and we will find that basically some professional software is expensive to get started, and there are even professional training courses to assist learning. There is definitely category email list no one on the market who says that Photoshop can be used as soon as you get started, and professional or long-term users will not say that Photoshop product logic is too complicated, so you don't need to category email list know it. In fact, it seems that everyone is prone to fall into a paradox here. Ease of use = simple and quick to get started. I understand that this conclusion itself is problematic, especially in some large-scale projects.