> "Tutorial screens and mechanisms are never a good thing."
What's your definition of a "good thing" or "actually good"? If it's quantifiable as higher engagement and retention then these mechanisms are far from "never a good thing". They're a good thing quite often - when done correctly. This is why you see them in many products that have growth teams dedicated to the task.
Agreed that the screenshots do not do a great implementation justice.
Note that when I'm talking about onboarding, I am talking about combining introducing users to the UI with introducing them to the product.
Sure introducing the user to UI by itself is not great.
> "If you've designed an experience that is intuitive and requires no tutorial screens, you want to include them anyways? Am I reading your post wrong?"
Slightly yeah. It should be read as: "If you've designed an experience that is intuitive and requires no tutorial screens, you want to test them anyways."
Because we've seen their inclusion improve engagement and conversion even in experiences that are intuitive. Sometimes that's not the case, but the possibility is strong enough to justify testing them out.
Completely agree here. I think the main theme of that section being "Don't over-educate users" if you can reach for high engagement and conversion rate without overlays, arrows, etc. then that's the way to go.
It's great to design the experience at the outset to not need the tutorial screens. And then test into the possibility of including them anyways.
One "in-between" possibility would be to have something similar to Slack's old onboarding experience where you'd see some elements that gently pulsed prompting the more curious users to click on them and learn more. And everyone else to safely ignore them and move on.
Interestingly Slack has moved on to more explicit explanations during their most recent onboarding iteration. But I am sure that they'll also try something without any tool-tips at all.
The larger point is that many apps have sliding screens that force users to read in order to learn about their app. And that users did not install and open the app to read about it. They're there to use it.
We've seen massive increases in conversion rate and engagement by replacing these screens with "learning by doing" interactions.
If that "learning by doing" step can be accomplished without tutorials then even better!
The Philae spacecraft's touchdown on comet 67P: was named as the year's most significant advance by Physics World. It was singled out for its "fundamental importance to space science".
Light on the cosmic web (January): Researchers used the radiation emitted by a quasar as a "cosmic flashlight" to illuminate the hidden tendrils of dark matter that underlie the visible Universe.
Neutrinos from the Sun (August): The Borexino experiment in Italy detected neutrino particles from the main nuclear reaction that powers the Sun. The number of neutrinos it saw agrees with theories, suggesting we do understand what's going on inside our parent star.
Laser fusion milestone (February): Scientists at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) in California made a breakthrough in the long road to self-sustaining fusion when they managed to get more energy out of fusion reactions than was deposited in the fuel by NIF's powerful laser.
Acoustic tractor beam (May): Once the preserve of science fiction, tractor beams are now a reality - at least in the lab. Physicists built a device that can pull objects by firing sound waves at them. The beam could have medical uses, such as manipulating objects within the body.
Supernovas in the lab (June): The Vulcan Laser Facility in Oxfordshire was used to recreate miniature star explosions, offering a window into some of the most powerful and unpredictable events in the cosmos.
Electron magnetism (June): Researchers in Israel were the first to measure the extremely weak magnetic interaction between two separate electron particles.
A better fibre for images (March): Scientists in the US used a physical effect called Anderson Localisation to develop a better optical fibre for transmitting images.
Holographic memory (February): American and Russian physicists built a new type of holographic memory device that stores data in the form of magnetic "bits".
Quantum compression: (September): The ability to compress quantum information was demonstrated for the first time by physicists in Canada and Japan.
Can't tell if this is a serious reply, but it seems to go against the conclusion of F8 where Mark said, "My goal for our culture over the next 10 years is to build a culture of loving the people that we serve that is as strong if not stronger than our culture of hacking at Facebook." [source: end of the article here http://goo.gl/iwWlck]
"If we can manage that, we can also convince all the users of WhatsApp, Facebook and Google Hangouts to switch to an open protocol that is ready for the challenges of 2014."
To quote PG, "...the way to do really big things seems to be to start with deceptively small things."
Aspirational goals are useful, but an answer to the "billion $" question is not always a necessity. Many billion dollar companies started off without an explicit goal to become huge businesses. See Facebook, Amazon, Google, etc.
This is awesome, but after going through all the trouble to protect your identity doesn't putting this up online undermine your efforts?
You mention days of the week in the post as well as some details of your exchange with the thief in your replies to his Craigslist ad. He could likely tie it back to you easily if he was informed of this story.
What's your definition of a "good thing" or "actually good"? If it's quantifiable as higher engagement and retention then these mechanisms are far from "never a good thing". They're a good thing quite often - when done correctly. This is why you see them in many products that have growth teams dedicated to the task.
Agreed that the screenshots do not do a great implementation justice.
Note that when I'm talking about onboarding, I am talking about combining introducing users to the UI with introducing them to the product.
Sure introducing the user to UI by itself is not great.
> "If you've designed an experience that is intuitive and requires no tutorial screens, you want to include them anyways? Am I reading your post wrong?"
Slightly yeah. It should be read as: "If you've designed an experience that is intuitive and requires no tutorial screens, you want to test them anyways."
Because we've seen their inclusion improve engagement and conversion even in experiences that are intuitive. Sometimes that's not the case, but the possibility is strong enough to justify testing them out.