I hate having to make choices all the time. As empowering as it should be to have options... they are usually just annoying.
I think that is why someone invented suits-- business casual is more comfortable, but it takes me an extra 5 minutes to get dressed because I have to make a bunch of choices. (Quick side note on the benefit of suits: I didn't even know that I was color blind until I started going business casual.)
I spent 3 minutes yesterday trying to pick which kind of apple I was going to buy. Why does Whole Foods give me 10 different choices of apples? If they have to do this, could they at least have the "recommended apple" sitting out in a prominent location?
Microsoft has figured out how to make the default count. That's why they have "fast setup" which requires few choices and "advanced setup" which, in all honesty, I have never used so I don't really know what it does though I imagine it would give me a bunch of annoying options that I don't need.
When I provide input into software and Web design at GovDelivery, I always push for the same approach. I want clients to know that if they take the path of least resistance, it will probably be the right path.
A recent article in the New Republic titled, "Easy Does It: How to Make Lazy People do the Right Thing" (unfortunately requires a subscription) addresses this opportunity in the public policy context.
For example, did you know that by allowing employers to make 401K plans opt-out instead of opt-in, the government has been able to greatly improve participation in 401K plans? Turns out, the average non-saver isn't choosing not to participate in their 401K plan, they are choosing not to fill out any forms. Make them fill out a form to opt-out of saving, and the same choice (don't fill out any forms) leads to a better outcome (401K participation).
The only thing I reject about this article is the reference to the public as "Lazy." I don't think I'm lazy, and I don't think you're lazy either, but in this day and age, almost everyone is busy and making choices takes time.
When you're communicating with the public, it can be scary to recommend something, but you can do the public a favor in your web design and software design by thinking of your "default option" as the "recommended option."
Hopefully, this slight shift in thinking will lead you to put more thought into the default and will raise your design standards so you're not just making it easy to make choices, you're also making it easy for users to succeed without making any choices at all.
I think that is why someone invented suits-- business casual is more comfortable, but it takes me an extra 5 minutes to get dressed because I have to make a bunch of choices. (Quick side note on the benefit of suits: I didn't even know that I was color blind until I started going business casual.)
I spent 3 minutes yesterday trying to pick which kind of apple I was going to buy. Why does Whole Foods give me 10 different choices of apples? If they have to do this, could they at least have the "recommended apple" sitting out in a prominent location?
Microsoft has figured out how to make the default count. That's why they have "fast setup" which requires few choices and "advanced setup" which, in all honesty, I have never used so I don't really know what it does though I imagine it would give me a bunch of annoying options that I don't need.
When I provide input into software and Web design at GovDelivery, I always push for the same approach. I want clients to know that if they take the path of least resistance, it will probably be the right path.
A recent article in the New Republic titled, "Easy Does It: How to Make Lazy People do the Right Thing" (unfortunately requires a subscription) addresses this opportunity in the public policy context.
For example, did you know that by allowing employers to make 401K plans opt-out instead of opt-in, the government has been able to greatly improve participation in 401K plans? Turns out, the average non-saver isn't choosing not to participate in their 401K plan, they are choosing not to fill out any forms. Make them fill out a form to opt-out of saving, and the same choice (don't fill out any forms) leads to a better outcome (401K participation).
The only thing I reject about this article is the reference to the public as "Lazy." I don't think I'm lazy, and I don't think you're lazy either, but in this day and age, almost everyone is busy and making choices takes time.
When you're communicating with the public, it can be scary to recommend something, but you can do the public a favor in your web design and software design by thinking of your "default option" as the "recommended option."
Hopefully, this slight shift in thinking will lead you to put more thought into the default and will raise your design standards so you're not just making it easy to make choices, you're also making it easy for users to succeed without making any choices at all.
Scott -- I also thought the New Republic article was a good one. Good social policy should encourage -- but not coerce -- positive outcomes.
Really interesting how you tie the points made in the article to web design.