Designing For Pleasure Instead of Against Pain by Aviel Ginzburg


Published on

Ginzburg talks about the difference between designing for enterprise vs. consumer

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Designing For Pleasure Instead of Against Pain by Aviel Ginzburg

  1. 1. Designing For Pleasure Instead of Against Pain Peddling Pain-Killers with Word2 ( With Aviel Ginzburg
  2. 2. Building • was built in 48 hours as part of Node JS Knockout. • We built it because we wanted to do something none of us had ever done before. • Without any game design experience, I used what I had… B2B software design experience… and approached it that way.
  3. 3. I Knew We Had Impossible Deadlines • More about assumptions than research. • Assumptions are almost always wrong (especially in 48 hour competitions). – Who is going to use our product? – Why are they going to use our product? – Why are they going to like our product? • Without any expertise, I didn’t know how to design an entertaining, pleasurable experience.
  4. 4. The User We Imagine / Hope For I have a need and you’re helping me quickly and effectively! YOU ROCK FOR MAKING MY LIFE AWESOME! • Generally happy disposition. • Excited to use the product. • Forgiving because you are making life better.
  5. 5. The User We SHOULD Imagine I hate the critical task I have to perform and despite your help, I’m still in pain! THANKS, BUT YOU’RE ON THIN ICE! • Generally unhappy disposition. • Has a real problem that needs solving. • Unforgiving but willing to give you a chance.
  6. 6. I Went With Assumptions I Was Comfortable With • Doing something “cool” isn’t usually good enough. • Design for a problem. – Successful B2B software design is about pain reduction. – Your product is valuable because it saves time and money. – Your user is injured and your product is a pain killer. • It’s easier to know what people won’t like than will like. • You’re more excited about your product than your users.
  7. 7. Who I Designed For I’m sick of reviewing these half- baked applications and am only looking for flaws. WHY SHOULD I GIVE YOU THE TIME OF DAY? • Generally unhappy disposition. • Is looking for things to be wrong rather than right. • Forgiving but barely willing to give you a chance… you have 15 seconds of attention.
  8. 8. Who is ACTUALLY For We’re 250,000+ people who want to spend hours and hours distracting and amusing ourselves with low barrier-to- entry word games. • Really happy to have a new game to play. • Excited to tell friends. • Forgiving of everything.
  9. 9. Designing For The “Wrong” User Didn’t Matter • My goals for reducing pain lowered the barrier of entry to enjoyment. – Use a simple and obvious decision tree. – Make it as simple as possible to play. – Utilize realism to convey “Scrabbleness”. • There were some interesting side effects. – Immersive, full posture game-play. – An addictive flow through rhythmic user actions.
  10. 10. A Simple and Obvious Decision Tree
  11. 11. Low Barrier to Entry Game-Play
  12. 12. Extremely Simple Interface
  13. 13. Immersive Game-Play
  14. 14. Utilizing Realism
  15. 15. In Practice… • When you don’t know how to please who you’re designing for… – Design for the user you know won’t like your application. – Design your application with critical judges in mind, rather than happy users.
  16. 16. A Really Good Painkiller == Pleasure • You can design for pleasure by simply protecting against pain. • Effective pain reducing design can result in a new market of pleasure seekers without the problem that you are addressing. (IE: DropBox)