Why We Are Building A Platform Instead Of An App

Currently I'm working with a team on an app. That is not so special. But this app is not a regular app. It is a very specific app. It's a platform. The fact that it's a platform is part of the solution. I've found that a platform is a very different way to solve a problem than a regular app.

Go to the profile of Dennis Hambeukers
Dennis Hambeukers BlockedUnblockFollowFollowing Feb 27
BlockedUnblockFollow 2月27日

Goalless

A platform has functions just as any app. The user can perform actions just like you can do in any app. But while the UX of most apps is aimed towards guiding the user through a series of tasks, a platform is more open. Good UX for traditional apps is about clarity, removing friction and, if you are lucky, adding some delight. The same goes for platforms but a platform doesn't have one goal. Platforms are designed more goalless, more open, more focussed on the process, the road, than the goal. On a platform, the user can determine his or her own goal. It has rules and limitations, but the user is free to use it as he or she pleases. The designer of the platform can envision certain use cases, but actual users of the platform can use it for their own purposes. The platform has to align to the goals of the designers but these goals can be different from the users.
平台具有与任何应用程序一样的功能。用户可以像在任何应用程序中一样执行操作。但是,虽然大多数应用程序的用户体验旨在引导用户完成一系列任务,但平台更加开放。传统应用程序的良好用户体验是关于清晰度,消除摩擦,如果你幸运的话,增加一些喜悦。平台也是如此,但平台没有一个目标。平台设计更加无目标,更开放,更专注于过程,道路,而不是目标。在平台上,用户可以确定他或她自己的目标。它有规则和限制,但用户可以随意使用它。该平台的设计者可以设想某些用例,但该平台的实际用户可以将其用于他们自己的目的。平台必须与设计师的目标保持一致,但这些目标可能与用户不同。

Don't start with why

I remember when I read a story about the beginnings one of the most popular platforms today, Twitter, that I was struck by the fact that the founders of Twitter did not agree on the goal or purpose of the platform. Common design intelligence suggests that the more clear you are on the purpose, the better the design will be. People like Simon Sinek are promoting starting with purpose, starting with why. But the founders of Twitter did not agree on their why, just on how and what. They themselves had multiple why's. Still it managed to become one of the most popular platforms today. It seems like different rules apply to designing platforms than for other apps. The openness, the goalless-ness, is a quality instead of a deficit.
我记得当我读到一篇关于今天最流行的平台之一Twitter的故事时,我对Twitter的创始人不同意该平台的目标或目的感到震惊。常见的设计智能表明,您的目的越明确,设计就越好。像Simon Sinek这样的人正在从有目的开始推动,从为什么开始。但Twitter的创始人并不同意他们的原因,只是关于如何以及如何。他们自己有多个原因。它仍然成为当今最受欢迎的平台之一。似乎不同的规则适用于设计平台而不是其他应用程序。开放性,无目标性,是质量而非赤字。

Biases and hidden agendas

On a platform, it might seem like users can do what they want. The rules of a platform are boundaries within which is a lot of freedom. But it's important to notice that platforms are not innocent. They have biases towards a certain type of behavior, they have their own (hidden) agendas. A platform achieves its goals indirectly. If its users are successful, the platform is not necessarily successful.
在平台上,用户似乎可以做他们想做的事。平台的规则是边界,其中有很多自由。但重要的是要注意平台不是无辜的。他们对某种行为有偏见,他们有自己的(隐藏的)议程。平台间接实现其目标。如果其用户成功,则该平台不一定成功。

User creativity

The design is intentional, but the power lies not in the creativity of the designers, but in the creativity of the users. Users can come up with uses that the designers did not anticipate. Then it becomes the decision of the designers to accommodate this behavior or to set up barriers. There is some control, but the users together with the designers determine the nature of the platform. It's deeply co-creative.
设计是有意的,但力量不在于设计师的创造力,而在于用户的创造力。用户可以提出设计师没有预料到的用途。然后,设计师决定适应这种行为或设置障碍。有一些控制,但用户和设计师一起确定平台的性质。它非常有创意。

Open world game

I remember when I first started to design digital applications. I used a program called Director from Macromedia. It used a timeline metaphor to create apps. Hence the title Director I guess. This is the manifestation of a mental model of interaction of a user with an app. It views the interaction as a (linear) series of scenes a user navigates through. There are predefined steps to achieve a predetermined goal. There can be junctions and alternative routes, but it remains linear and with a predetermined goal. This mental model is still the dominant today. Take a look at how designers design apps and you'll see screens in a sequence. Even a tool like a customer journey maps uses this mental model. But a platform is a different kind of beast. In video games terms, it's more of an open world game. The story is different. Users choose their own path, deploy their own tactics. This freedom sparks creativity. In time, certain strategies will prove more successful than others and users will converge to best practices. But each user has a choice. They can use the platform in their own way, for their own goals. Platforms can also pivot if a user discovers a different use. Users can also misuse the platform. Sometimes moderation is required. For platforms the linear movie mental model doesn't work.
我记得我刚开始设计数字应用程序的时候。我使用了Macromedia的一个名为Director的程序。它使用时间轴比喻来创建应用程序。因此,我猜是主任。这是用户与应用程序交互的心智模型的表现。它将交互视为用户导航的(线性)系列场景。存在实现预定目标的预定义步骤。可以有交叉点和替代路线,但它保持线性并具有预定目标。这种心理模型仍然是今天的主导。看看设计师如何设计应用程序,你会看到序列中的屏幕。即使像客户旅程地图这样的工具也使用这种心理模型。但是平台是一种不同的野兽。在视频游戏方面,它更像是一个开放的世界游戏。故事不同。用户选择自己的路径,部署自己的战术。这种自由激发了创造力。随着时间的推移,某些策略将比其他策略更成功,用户将融入最佳实践。但每个用户都有一个选择。他们可以以自己的方式使用平台,以实现自己的目标。如果用户发现不同的用途,平台也可以进行转动。用户也可以滥用该平台。有时需要审核。对于平台,线性电影心理模型不起作用。 The linear movie metaphor VS the open world game metaphor
线性电影隐喻VS开放世界游戏比喻

What to test

I found that this has some interesting consequences. Testing for instance is totally different. In a traditional user test you want to test if a user can perform the tasks the way you designed them. You test if he can reach the predetermined goal. This also is an issue in platforms because there are certain tasks a user has to perform and they have to be clear. But the most important thing you want to test is if users are inspired, if they start developing tactics, envisioning use cases, start experimenting.
我发现这有一些有趣的后果。例如,测试完全不同。在传统的用户测试中,您希望测试用户是否可以按照您设计的方式执行任务。你测试他是否能达到预定的目标。这也是平台中的问题,因为用户必须执行某些任务并且必须清楚。但是,您要测试的最重要的事情是,如果用户受到启发,如果他们开始制定策略,设想用例,则开始尝试。

Open mind

They funny thing is that while we are working on the app, a couple of other people came up with a similar idea. Almost like something is in the air. What I see is that all these other people are creating regular apps, not platforms. This means they have predetermined processes, rules of engagement, predetermined goals. One of the problems is that all decisions are based on assumptions. A good design process with user interviews and testing can minimize the amount of assumptions but these things are all framed and thus not objective. When you ask questions from your own frame, you get feedback that is colored. Users don't have all the answers, especially before the app is live. In making a platform we try to let go of control, to keep the process as open as possible, to be open to user behavior as much as possible. I guess these are subtle differences and it's not all black and white but I feel the design mindset is quite different. In the first tests we did we found that the users like the openness, not being in boxes, not being told how to behave. I hope that the open mind we have while designing the platform creates the same open mindedness with the users. I think the imagination of the users about what they could do on the platform is the most important factor.
有趣的是,当我们正在开发应用程序时,其他几个人提出了类似的想法。几乎像空气中的东西一样。我看到的是,所有这些人都在创建常规应用程序,而不是平台。这意味着他们有预定的流程,参与规则,预定的目标。其中一个问题是所有决策都基于假设。通过用户访谈和测试的良好设计过程可以最大限度地减少假设的数量,但这些都是框架的,因此不是客观的。当您从自己的框架中提问时,您会收到有色的反馈。用户没有得到所有答案,特别是在应用程序上线之前。在制作平台时,我们尝试放弃控制,尽可能保持流程开放,尽可能地对用户行为开放。我猜这些都是微妙的差异,并不是全黑,但我觉得设计思维方式完全不同。在我们做的第一次测试中,我们发现用户喜欢开放性,而不是在盒子里,没有被告知如何表现。我希望我们在设计平台时拥有开放的心态,与用户建立同样的开放态度。我认为用户对平台上可以做的事情的想象力是最重要的因素。 Imagination for design VS design for imagination Designing for imagination. I quite like that idea. I find it quite liberating.
设计的想象力VS想象力的设计想象力的设计。我非常喜欢这个主意。我发现它很自由。

查看英文原文

查看更多文章

公众号:银河系1号
公众号:银河系1号

联系邮箱:public@space-explore.com
联系邮箱:public@space-explore.com

(未经同意,请勿转载)
(未经同意,请勿转载)