It's pretty simple to understand - when a user opens a tool, it's because they want to do the thing that tool does, now.
If someone opens my videoconferencing product 98% of the time it's they've got a scheduled call to join within the next 20 seconds. They're not going to be late for their meeting so they can read my release notes.
If someone opens my PDF viewer, 99.9% chance they want to view the PDF they just opened. Very rare someone opens the PDF reader because they're just having a look around to see if there are any interesting new features.
If someone opens my virtual whiteboard product, 95% chance they're in some sort of sprint review meeting and they want to write some virtual post-it notes right now. A tour isn't what they need.
If someone opens the ticket management product, or the expense report filing product, or the music playing product... you get the picture.
Thats true for point solutions. You often dont find a guided product tour there.
Guided tour does have its place where the product is a workflow, a platform offering, has bunch of features and you want to introduce the feature to them.
If you are paying 10-25k USD per year, you expect some onboarding specialist who gives instructions on integrating ACH and payroll systems etc. It is very common for non-technical folk to hop on a onboarding call.
People often try to automate that as it is expensive, but i think people prefer that human touch esp. when you are paying alot of money.
On the other hand, I think it's interesting to compare the dislike in these comments (and elsewhere) to "RTFM" culture. What's the primary difference? That you can read the manual or use the product at your discretion? e.g. `ls` doesn't forcefully open the man page when you run it for the first time?
(I'm aware of the goomba fallacy and that these are likely two different groups of people - I still think it's interesting!)
You nailed the primary difference. If I want to just use the tool I can do that; if I need to learn how to use a complex feature, I can consult the help or do a web search for a how to.
The other huge problem is you never tell the user what they'll get out of the tour. People will invest in a tour if they understand the reward (and "learning" can't be the reward).
Instead of product tours I like how AWS has little info/help buttons that are placed right next to every informational/actionable element on their dashboard. Totally unobtrusive. If you want to understand something on the dashboard that is not obvious at first, you can click on the info/help button that opens a side panel with a lot more information about that particular element (and any associated topics). Most of the time, you just know what you are dealing with (or can guess what that particular topic might mean and you will probably be right).
Incredible that tooltips were killed because braindead """designers""" couldn't figure out how to make them work on mobile.
They'll be reintroduced under a new name in a decade or two with endless self-congratulation. Same as physical car controls.
Here's a solution off the top of my head: have a dedicate "info" button at the OS level. Holding the button disables normal interaction, highlights all inspectable elements, and allows you to click on each one for a description. Like "inspect element" in the browser.
> Here's a solution off the top of my head: have a dedicate "info" button at the OS level. Holding the button disables normal interaction, highlights all inspectable elements, and allows you to click on each one for a description. Like "inspect element" in the browser.
This is a really cool idea. Agreed! Wish something like this actually existed.
I've never in my life seen a useful product tour. They're always blatantly obvious like "THIS IS THE SEARCH BAR. USE IT TO FIND CONTENT ACROSS OUR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES."
The best UX is using obvious and standard design, plus a searchable menu / command palette.
Ime, the only useful product tours where in games, I. E., tutorials. This usually extends up to in-game hints at certain features like a characters ability. A lot of software can probably pull inspiration from there in regards to including hints with minimal interruption during usage (tooltips that are shown longer the first time you use something etc).
This isn't that hard. Most of the time, the "changes" are useless UI Slop: "we've moved notifications to this TOTALLY BETTER OTHER SPOT IN THE SCREEN that one of our designers snuck a commit in with and nobody wanted to argue about it, because the last time it just came down to differing opinions. Its not really better but it's different!"
And the other reason is because most users probably have day jobs and need to get something done.
Atlassian is particularly enraging, especially if you're dealing with setting up "new" accounts. I've worked with your shitware for a decade now, I know how it works, DO NOT FORCE ME TO MAKE TEN CLICKS TO GET RID OF A FUCKING INTRO.
Rather, invest your time into a good, logical UI and, most importantly, good AND CURRENT documentation.
If someone opens my videoconferencing product 98% of the time it's they've got a scheduled call to join within the next 20 seconds. They're not going to be late for their meeting so they can read my release notes.
If someone opens my PDF viewer, 99.9% chance they want to view the PDF they just opened. Very rare someone opens the PDF reader because they're just having a look around to see if there are any interesting new features.
If someone opens my virtual whiteboard product, 95% chance they're in some sort of sprint review meeting and they want to write some virtual post-it notes right now. A tour isn't what they need.
If someone opens the ticket management product, or the expense report filing product, or the music playing product... you get the picture.
Guided tour does have its place where the product is a workflow, a platform offering, has bunch of features and you want to introduce the feature to them.
If you are paying 10-25k USD per year, you expect some onboarding specialist who gives instructions on integrating ACH and payroll systems etc. It is very common for non-technical folk to hop on a onboarding call.
People often try to automate that as it is expensive, but i think people prefer that human touch esp. when you are paying alot of money.
Because their goal metric is number of tasks closed/features delivered (and this counts as one), not customers satisfied.
Plus, social parroting - a misconception that if it's popular and everyone does it it "can't be wrong".
On the other hand, I think it's interesting to compare the dislike in these comments (and elsewhere) to "RTFM" culture. What's the primary difference? That you can read the manual or use the product at your discretion? e.g. `ls` doesn't forcefully open the man page when you run it for the first time?
(I'm aware of the goomba fallacy and that these are likely two different groups of people - I still think it's interesting!)
They'll be reintroduced under a new name in a decade or two with endless self-congratulation. Same as physical car controls.
Here's a solution off the top of my head: have a dedicate "info" button at the OS level. Holding the button disables normal interaction, highlights all inspectable elements, and allows you to click on each one for a description. Like "inspect element" in the browser.
This is a really cool idea. Agreed! Wish something like this actually existed.
Imagine you walked into a convenience store and the owner was like "Hey you need to take the tour first!"
The best UX is using obvious and standard design, plus a searchable menu / command palette.
And the other reason is because most users probably have day jobs and need to get something done.
Atlassian is particularly enraging, especially if you're dealing with setting up "new" accounts. I've worked with your shitware for a decade now, I know how it works, DO NOT FORCE ME TO MAKE TEN CLICKS TO GET RID OF A FUCKING INTRO.
Rather, invest your time into a good, logical UI and, most importantly, good AND CURRENT documentation.