The Impact of Rethinking User Experience – From Toothbrushes to Teslas
How will we experience the next generation of “old” products? That is, products that already exist and seem “normal” to us, in the way they are designed and in the way they solve our problem.
User experience is a very wide term. It can be used when talking about what colors should be used on a website or where a buy button should be placed in a software product, but it can also be used to describe how a user interacts with anything. What happens in the eyes of the user? What problem are you really solving? And are you solving it in a way that makes sense?
In his talk, Straubel told the story about how Tesla redesigned an “old” product to be something new. They had the possibility to rethink how the user experience could be improved as they set out to create a “new” kind of electric car.
Most often, industries end up in something you might call a rut. Companies keep producing similar products because it is what have always been and “it worked”. But then there are innovators who change the space of a product or an industry.
Oral B did just that with the help of IDEO in a project regarding a redesign of a kid’s toothbrush in 1996. Tom Kelley, founder of IDEO, tells the story about how Oral B came to them for the redesign, in a talk at Stanford in 2008. He explains that to create the most value, IDEO wanted to do what they always did, “go out and make observations because you can (almost) always spot opportunities”, he says.
They realized that the kid’s’ toothbrush was just a smaller version of the adult’s one, but it wasn’t used the same by kids as they were by adults. Noticing this, the IDEO team designed a toothbrush with a bigger handle, and making it squishy so it fitted better in the hands of a kid. Today, kids’ toothbrushes look like the one designed by IDEO back in 1996. And since Oral B were first on the market, they ended up having the best-selling kid’s toothbrush in the world – for 18 months.
We make implicit assumptions about how users want to solve problems, and we have a lot to blame legacy for that. It’s always easier to just do the same as before, instead of rethinking. This is one of the reasons why startups threaten the existing market. They are forced to rethink how a solution should solve a problem, since the adoption of their product is what decides if the startup fails or succeeds.
Instead of asking users what they want, we need to observe (or ask) them to see what problems they are experiencing. It can be as detailed as your experience when brushing your teeth, or as big-scale as your experience in getting from one place to another. Tesla challenges the way we look at eco-friendly transportation with their electric vehicles and have received extreme recognition for this.
Their first version, the Tesla Roadster, was a success for the company despite roadblocks in production for years, according to an article in Electrek.
“But, [The Roadster] was successful for Tesla because it achieved its main objectives. The Roadster changed people’s perception of what electric cars can be and it helped launch or accelerate several more electric vehicle programs.”
Because who said electric vehicles had to be silly, slow and not very cool? Tesla changed the way we look at electric vehicles today. And we can do the same in more industries and with more products. Who says a laptop has to be attached to its keyboard? Who says a key has to be physical? And who says we need to press buttons when we want something to happen?
Rethinking user experiences enables us to innovate and create something new with what already is. And it is as simple as observing the problems and solving them with a different mindset. What would you solve?
References:
https://electrek.co/2017/06/25/tesla-roadster-3-0-review/
http://ecorner.stanford.edu/videos/2099/Thinking-Like-a-Traveler
Users who have LIKED this post:
17 comments on “The Impact of Rethinking User Experience – From Toothbrushes to Teslas”
Comments are closed.
Thank you for posting, Julia. I really like this.
Your article appears to be a epigram for financial industry for me, as I have worked for nine years in banking industry.
“Rethinking user experiences” is critical not only for goods but also services.
Why do we still keep using cheque?
Why do we use PIN even though there are other safer methods?
Why are branches of banks necessary?
Why do we have to write so many meaningless documents?
>It’s always easier to just do the same as before, instead of rethinking. This is one of the reasons why startups threaten the existing market.
>Rethinking user experiences enables us to innovate and create something new with what already is. And it is as simple as observing the problems and solving them with a different mindset. What would you solve?
Hi Kenta,
I agree! I was at a FinTech event yesterday when they talked about exactly this. However, in the industry of financial services it’s harder to innovate due to the difficulties of testing the product or “sandboxing” it. Maybe that’s the first problem we should solve? 🙂
Thanks for your addition!
Thank you for this post. I personally like a lot the concept of ”user experience”. First of all, “user”, customer, or client is in the center of company’s attention, and I believe in today’s world this is the right think to do. We live in times, when the power is in the consumer’s hand. The second important point is that all we do, any time we use the product is an EXPERIENCE, it is not static but a process that involves many steps and it is important to look through the whole process when looking into the ways to improve products and services.
There are a lot of inspiring stories, when companies adopted UX and revolutionized their products or services, but in my opinion it is not as simples as it sounds. I tried to look into the methods and tools that can be used but couldn’t find any particularly good source that would summarize available practices. I would apricate of somebody could advise or share practical experience on how to put UX concept into practice.
Hi Natasha,
Thank you for your comment! This is what I do for a living so I’ll happily talk more with you about it 🙂 I would recommend you to have a look at usertesting.com and read about “human-centered design” anywhere, and you might be able to get some more inspiration. However, in my opinion, I think the answer lies in diversity of perspectives and mindsets in the members of the group when solving this kind of problem and an open culture where all ideas are welcome, because it’s usually the crazy ideas that spawn the ones that make it!
This seems particularly relevant today, when so many products are “x as a service”. Most of the time we are not limited in our ability to obtain a means to an end, and have many options at our finger tips to choose from. With lyft, Uber, fasten etc all available to download for example there is little to sway our decision other than price and user experience. Another example would be the flood of smart phones on the market, yet a huge portion of the population chooses the iphone. The reason isn’t cost (as it isn’t inexpensive by comparison) it is user experience.
This focus is good, as I also agree with your statement that we need to rethink user experiences to innovate. While crowded markets can be frustrating and turbulent at times, it forces companies to try to differentiate themselves.
While this is especially true for older products (like a toothbrush) I also think we need to keep this in mind with newer technologies. Things like parallel programming on GPUs or blockchain or even quantum computing open the door for drastically different user experiences, and we don’t have to wait for markets to get saturated and products to get old to look for them.
Hi Kyle,
You make an excellent point. Technology allows us to change processes but I think it’s important to remember that adding technology on top of an existing process has proven to not work. (Why does companies redesign the physical paying experience over and over again by adding more steps to the experience?) It’s because they just “add” technology, they don’t rethink or expand their view about what a paying experience really is.
But as you said, the user experience is one of the main selling points of a product today. It will be interesting to see how the market develops with that in mind.
Thanks for your comment 🙂
Thanks for sharing Julia!
I think we you have mentioned is really the key to product design. Thinking about the user experience will inevitably place ourselves in the user’s shoes and think about how we can improve our offer.
This concept is also a lot strengthened in the design thinking method, which you have to always break the rules and pre-existing assumptions and start as you were from scratch to understand what your product actually provide for the users. It seems to be a dumb question, but if you think deeply about it, you may gain lots of insight: student dining may not be about what you eat, but rather how you create the opportunity for students to interact and engage with each other; luxury may not be whether the fabric or manufacturing process you use is unique and marvelous, but how you and other people can agree to the value that the brand created and feel cool about it etc. Thinking out of the box and throw away what you already have is really a good way to get started.
P.S. I recently discovered that IDEO is doing online classes for Design Thinking and it’s really well designed and explained.
Hi Qiunan,
I love how you think! That’s truly the key I believe. You should also check out d.school at Stanford if you haven’t already 🙂 Thank you for the addition!
It is true that to penetrate any specific market, you have to bring a familiar product. Google Glass is one example of a very good product that went down the drain in the same manner. It never fit into the culture at that time, it seemed too futuristic to be adopted. The appearance of the glass was too ‘nerdy’ and unnatural; a thin frame with a little thick glass on only one side. Nobody had ever worn something like that before. The functionality of the gadget was undefined; or unnecessary. People were scared of being constantly watched by the one eyed glass. In the end, very few people used the technology. Fast tracking to a few years later, the glass era is not so bad after all; Snapchat’s Spectacles (https://www.spectacles.com/) have been embraced and cool and trendy. I would personally want to own a pair. They fit well with the current culture of taking pictures and short videos, they look like normal sunglasses and they are very affordable. Now it is easy to figure out what went wrong with the Google glasses. I almost have a bad feeling about the Oculus VR headsets. Do you think the market is ready to embrace this technology? Going into full immersion with no idea of whats happening around you?
Hi Patricia,
Great example, love that. With new technology, most companies get stuck in “launching” that technology in a cool way rather than solving a problem with it. I guess that was the issue with Google Glass. Also, the Spectacles are supposed to be fun so it permeates the whole product, in it’s looks and how it’s used.
On your point about the VR headset, I think the market is definitely not ready. Since the prices are still high (and dropping quite fast), I think many will wait for it to be more affordable and to have more usecases. But surely, it’s a great product and I’m sure it will be possible to solve many problems with it 🙂
Thanks for sharing!
I think Patricia’s idea of familiarity is really key. Spectales resembles any cool sunglases, the kids’ toothbrush was very similar to the old one excpet for the handle, and even Teslas resemble in many ways traditional cars. It seems that it is crucial to improve the user experience, while understanding which parts of the “old” product works really well, in order to stay ahead of the competition. I think that another pitfall of large companies is that they change their products and the user experience for the sake of changing it, instead of really understanding which parts work, and which ones should be improved.
Great post Julia! Looks like some great examples were shared in the comments already, but one that comes to mind is the passport. It’s bizarre to me that we still rely on a paper-book to travel internationally, particularly when the probability of it being lost/stolen/damaged are high.
That said, I find the passport interesting because of the various entities and regulation involved (governments, travelers, airport personnel) and the similarities to Tesla (state governments, car owners, car repair personnel); I wonder if a user-focused bottom-up redesign of the system can improve traveler experience.
Hi Gaurav,
That’s a really interesting comment. However, passports need to work globally so I’m not sure it could be solved with technology right now as technology is not accessible in all countries. Would love to hear your thoughts if you disagree though! 🙂
Again great post and thanks for sharing!
First off I would like to say how much of a nostalgic feeling you gave me when you mentioned Oral-B. I can remember during my childhood, buying kiddies toothbrushes every other week before mum catches on to me and gets angry 🙂
Though from what you gather from the, “Roadster” and Oral-B’s youth toothbrush was a huge success, I would like to explore the failures from many other first mover advantages in this post.
The 3D TV was a sensation when it first came out. The hype was gathered and there was a willingness to pay before it launched in 2010. Panasonic was the first to commercialise it before the Korean giants, Samsung, nor Sony from Japan. However, though it was a, ‘wow’ idea, the mass population was not able to pay for such additional requirements in order to operate the full 3D experience. Users would need to support it with a Blueray player. Followed by 3D glasses per person added to the inconvenience of watching films. Most movies and TV shows do not produce in 3D animation, therefore the shortages of supply was not made public despite audiences wanting the, ‘experience’. Reports commented that it gave people headaches and nausea while w Panasonic lost a whopping $1.69 billion in 2011 profits from R&D, marketing and promotions, and lack of units sold from the TV, which also happened to be 57% drop of profits from last year. Overall, the idea was innovative, pioneering and significantly a, ‘game changer’ to some, however, sometimes ideas fall through and the market is not ready to accept it regardless of their first mover advantage. First-mover status can confer advantages, but it does not do so categorically. Much depends on the circumstances of the consumer base at the set point in time.
Additionally we can explore AT&T Netscape’s mini stumbles along the way. In some cases, both technological innovation and consumer acceptance advance rapidly, leaving first movers highly vulnerable. AT&T and Netscape are examples of companies that capsized by the rapid change of technological and markets reform. AT&T was the first company to establish a cellular phone system in the US. They made a prototype in 1977, a year later held the systems first trial, including 2,000 customers in Chicago. However in 1983, Ameritech, AT&T’s competitor, offered commercial analog cellular operations after they were authorised so.
As a result neither AT&T nor Netscape was able to make a profit in the new product spaces due to the strength of later entrants offerings. Research says that a large part of the reason was the type of waters both had gone into at the time. Thus, in conclusion, first movers may have initial public offerings but the success they think they will dive into is largely dependant on the circumstances of the market.
Thanks Julia! See you tomorrow! Enjoy your time with your mum in SF 🙂
References
https://www.theverge.com/2012/1/21/2722640/sony-panasonic-debt-rating-downgrade-television
https://www.extremetech.com/electronics/243280-3d-tv-finally-blessedly-mercifully-dead-will-vr-follow-suit
https://hbr.org/2015/08/when-first-movers-are-rewarded-and-when-theyre-not
Hey Julia, I really like your view on this topic.
I work a lot with great entrepreneurs and techy guys in Canada on developing new types of UI & UX, and I love your take on that. Everyone in the ecosystem right now tries to think about the next big UI that will disrupt old physical interface.
Will be interesting to see how the UX will evolve according to theses UIs evolution.
Hi Raphael, thanks for your comment, I’m glad you liked it 🙂 the UI part of the development is interesting to follow as well, indeed!
Thanks for sharing Julia! This is a great topic!
I want to add on the concept about Micro-interactions which is also a hot topic related to this.
Here is the quote from Don Norman:
“Are microinteractions details? Damn right: The magic is all in the details.
The ‘micro’ in ‘microinteractions’ implies it is about the small things. Small? Yes. Unimportant? Absolutely not! Microinteractions is about those critical details that make the difference between a friendly experience and traumatic anxiety. As Dan Saffer points out in his Preface, designers love to get the big picture right. It’s a wonderful feeling. No problem is too large. But even if the big picture is done right, unless the details are also handled properly, the solution fails: the details are what control the moment to moment experience. It is timely details that lead to seamless interaction with our products. Alternatively, it is the lack of attention to those details that lead to frustration, irritation, and eventually an intense dislike of the product. Yes, the big picture matters, but so too does the detailed picture. It is attention to details that creates a smooth feeling of accomplishment.”