Today, I read what I consider to be the funniest usability review ever written. Now, if you’ve spent much time at all with usability evaluation reports, the word “funny” is not one you’d readily associate with such texts. At iQ Content, we strive for “clarity” or “actionability” or some other laudable goal in writing these things, but experience has taught us that “funny” doesn’t go down well with clients.
Charlie Brooker, a columnist for the Guardian newspaper, labours under no such constraint. His review of the Samsung E900 phone is what football pundits might call a comprehensive demolition. From the title of the piece – My new mobile is lumbered with a bewildering array of unnecessary features aimed at idiots
– Brooker is unrelenting in hammering this product’s poor design.
What’s great about this review, though, is the way in which Brooker makes his dissatisfaction personal. This product has clearly inflicted misery in large doses, as he says so eloquently:
It seems to have been designed specifically to irritate anyone with a mind. It starts gently – a pinch of annoyance here, an inconvenience there – but before long the steady drip, drip, drip of minor frustrations begins to affect your quality of life, like a mouth ulcer, or a stone in your boot, or the lingering memory of love gone sour.
Well said. So many of the effects of poor design exist at exactly this level of insidious affliction, but more often than not people cannot articulate the source of the problem or, worse, end up as apologists for the bad design and blame themselves. No, really, I see this every day of the week. Bad design makes people feel stupid, miserable and humiliated.
So it is a real pleasure to read such an unrestrained outburst of rage at this phone. I’d like to think that Samsung’s design and marketing team have retreated to their meeting rooms with a sense of shame and humility. But that’s probably too much to hope for. Products like this can only be produced by design teams that have been carefully insulated from all useful contact with the people they expect to use their products. Shame.
So thank you Charlie Brooker, for brightening my day considerably. Go and read his review immediately. You will enjoy it and be edified in equal measure.
Footnote
After sending a link to Brooker’s review around to my colleagues, one of them admitted to nearly buying the Samsung E900. Now Brooker got it for free from Orange – imagine how you’d feel if you actually shelled out cash for this phone! What tempted my colleague to reach for his wallet? It looked really cool, you know
. Buyer beware.
March 10, 2007 at 6:52 pm
It seems to have been designed specifically to irritate anyone with a mind.
Brilliant. It’s amazing how much money the handset manufacturers pour into design and yet how little attention goes into how the things will actually be used by humans.
March 11, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Very funny
I went ahead and checked the first google entry for that phone. The website that showcases this phone was nothing less of the phone itself, requiring me to install some heavy duty plugin to view the phone in 3D. Hello!! Flash, anybody?
March 12, 2007 at 9:03 am
There’s a similar story behind Motorola’s Razr phone.
Although massive sales of the Razr are credited with turning around the fortunes of Motorola, 78% of people who bought one, would never buy another Motorola handset
(source: http://tinyurl.com/2eo3sh)
March 20, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Yes!! My own personal experience with the “Razr” phone was a nightmare,
changing ringtones on its own –
turning off, on its own –
Freeezing because you tried to complete the very demanding task of Answering A phone Call!
Yes, motorola get the thumbs down!! Why i turned my back on Nokia, i dont know, but it will take alot to make me do it again!
May 10, 2007 at 2:51 am
That’s awesome! Although I can appreciate the humor, the real point was to get across how unusable the interface was. You have to be careful not to sound bitter when doing reviews like that. It’s a fine line you don’t want to cross , lest you lose credibility.