Last weekend, I was saddened to see that my favorite local park had been trashed for some idiotic wine tasting event. Even worse, the event organizers left all the tents, chairs, and detritus in place a full day after it ended. For anyone who saw this scene after the fact, it certainly didn’t create any goodwill towards the event and the groups that sponsored it.

Obviously, the best way to handle this situation is not to create a huge mess in the first place. But if the nature of the event and venue makes this impractical, it helps to take some responsibility for what you’ve done. In particular, I recommend leaving a few signs up after the event to indicate what’s going on and how you’re going to resolve it. For example: “Sorry about the mess — we promise to have everything back to normal by Tuesday morning”.

Some might say this approach makes you look guilty. But not saying anything looks even worse.

While in a store that isn’t exactly known for umbrellas, I saw a nice display with tons of different umbrella models. Sure enough, I needed a new umbrella, since my last one got bent in half by a crazy storm a few months ago. Anyways, I picked out the umbrella I wanted, and continued shopping for other stuff.

A few minutes later, I saw another display with even more umbrellas to choose from. They looked like the same ones I already looked through, so I ignored it. But this got me wondering: what would happen if the store put up a sign on each rack, saying something like “Find more umbrellas near the checkout area”? Would people heed that advice and possibly leave the first display empty-handed, only to get distracted by something else and never buy an umbrella in the first place?

With this in mind, I think the optimal approach is to use that sort of signage, but with a twist. Tell people where they can find more of the original item, in case the first display doesn’t have what they’re looking for. But also remind them to take the best match along for the ride. For example: “You can find more umbrellas near the checkout area, but don’t forget to take one with you right now. Our top models sell out quickly!” Granted, this isn’t a perfect example. But hopefully it will get you thinking about the ways to lead customers to additional selection, without distracting them from making a purchase.

My laser printer goes nuts when you take out the paper tray to add more paper, beeping loudly for what seems like 30 seconds at a time. However, it doesn’t make any noise or even show a message on the display when the network cable gets unplugged. This is even more annoying when you think about the relative value of these two error states. It’s quite obvious when the paper tray is out, while a network cable can come loose without any visible evidence of the problem. I wish the designers had thought a little harder about which errors actually convey useful information, compared to the ones that just tell people what they already know.

I recently purchased some exercise clothes from Amazon. Nothing too fancy, just shorts and a shirt. Having used them once so far, I’m confident I made a good purchase and will be happy with the products. This makes me wonder: how can the retailer take better advantage of this to increase their sales?

It’s common knowledge that people are often happiest with a purchase right after they buy the product. It follows that you should be able to entice people to buy more copies of a product that they just purchased, assuming they like it. I think a simple discount strategy could make this happen.

In brief, whenever you’re shipping a product that people might logically want to own more than one set or pair of, just include a coupon to encourage repeat purchases. You could also send this via email a few days after the product is delivered. Of course, the promotion should be time limited as well, e.g. “Are you happy with your purchase? If so, use discount code 12345 to get 10% off another set of the same products in the next 10 days”. Sure, some customers might already be in the habit of reordering things they like. But for everyone else, the number of repeat purchases should be a lot greater if you give them a little nudge.

While they certainly aren’t perfect from a usability standpoint, there are some interface elements that I really admire in household appliances. One of these is the “Add Minute” or “+30 Seconds” button that you find on most microwaves. The concept is so simple: if you’re warming something up and you realize it needs more time, just press the button to add the corresponding amount. You don’t need to wait for the existing process to finish and then start over again.

This makes me wonder: why doesn’t software provide a similar capability? Say that you have a meeting scheduled and need to move it back an hour, or a day, or a week. Why doesn’t the scheduling software have a button for “Move back 1 hour” or “Reschedule for 1 week later”? It seems like a needless hassle to open the event, click Edit, choose the new time and date by typing it in or using the calendar, and then click Save. The process could obviously be a lot more elegant.

Would customers use this feature? I certainly think so. Perhaps a few scheduling programs already offer it. I can see applications for other types of software too. So, if your users tend to edit certain attributes of existing items on a regular basis, perhaps it’s worth thinking about how you can include some “Add minute” buttons of your own.

When I use a program a lot, I usually end up learning a few keyboard shortcuts to save time. I would like to learn more of them, but it’s hard to find the ones that will actually be useful to me. Sure, there are some shortcuts listed in the menus, but the best ones are usually tucked away in help files or other obscure places.

I propose a better way of teaching users about time-saving keyboard shortcuts. First, provide a menu option along the lines of “Show me the shortcuts for each task I perform”. After selecting this, the program would watch the user’s actions and display a dialog box with the corresponding keyboard shortcut, if any. Second, provide an option for the program to analyze your past usage and show you the shortcuts that match up with the functions you perform the most.

While creating this type of assisted learning tool would require some programming, it would greatly increase the number of users who actually take advantage of keyboard shortcuts. In turn, these users would get more value from the program, use it more often, and be more likely to recommend it to their friends and colleagues. Plus, it’s pretty unusual for software to proactively teach you how to use it more effectively, so the learning feature would be novel in itself — further increasing the word-of-mouth benefits.

After about eight years of flawless performance (OK, maybe the last two were kind of sketchy), my trusty stapler finally stopped working. When I surveyed the damage, I saw that some of the inner parts had cracked and fallen out. Realizing that it was time to buy a new stapler, I headed over to the nearest office supply store.

Once I reached the stapler aisle, I was greeted with a fairly massive selection of models. They had about a dozen manual ones (including some with “soft touch”, whatever that means), along with a half dozen automatic models. I wanted a simple replacement for my fallen companion, so I focused on the most basic models. I quickly narrowed my choices to a plastic model for about $7 and a metal one for $11.

Obviously, $4 is a pretty small difference in price. For something I’d hopefully be keeping for five years or more, the metal one should easily be worth the extra few bucks. But that logic didn’t matter here. My previous model was plastic, and held up for a really long time. So I bought the no-frills plastic model for $7.

I’m not usually the sort of person who just buys the cheapest thing, so my choice puzzled me at first. Then it dawned on me: the store did a really poor job at upselling the staplers. There was little reason to choose anything besides the most basic manual or electric model, unless you had really specific needs. And when I thought about it, I didn’t see any evidence that the metal one would last any longer or be any better to use. Plus, if the new stapler broke after a few years, I would feel a lot better replacing it with another inexpensive model, rather than getting into a vicious cycle of expensive desk accessories.

Maybe I’ve overdramatized this experience a bit. But the takeaway for marketers is quite clear. If you present customers with a wide variety of seemingly comparable products, you need to give people an easy way to tell them apart. This goes beyond features like a smooth-acting mechanism or low-staple indicator. The warranty and cost-of-ownership benefits come into play as well. For example, if the more expensive model had a lifetime warranty, where you just bring it back to the store for a no-hassle swap, and the cheaper one was just a one year guarantee, I would have upgraded in an instant.

Other people apparently feel the same way I do, at least in the exciting world of staplers. A closer look at the rack showed that the cheap model was nearly sold out, and I got the last one they had. In contrast, there were ample copies of the more expensive models that remained unwanted and unsold.

When looking at how different people design the same type of interface, I’m usually surprised to see certain elements that all the designs have in common — especially when those elements are of little value to users. Take the “Play all” option that you see in DVD menus. Have you ever used this? Who watches four or six or eight episodes of something in one sitting? It makes me think that the people who design these interfaces have never watched a DVD themselves. Or perhaps they’re just afraid of causing a stir by taking the feature out, since it’s so common on existing DVD.

If you suspect that these types of elements are tagging along in your own products, maybe it’s time to ask your customers if they ever use them. Better yet, watch how those customers use the product, since what people say often varies from what they do. And once you confirm which features are dead weight, cut them out and make room for something that’s actually useful.

In my experience, it’s very difficult to compare two items that you’ve created in a given software program. You know, trying to see if the first one matches the second one, or if a new entry is the same as the ones you made last year. Usually this involves loading up each of the items in its own window, and switching back and forth to visually spot the differences. If you’re trying to compare a lot of different entries or there’s a long list of settings, this can take forever.

Here are just a few situations where these comparisons often become ugly:

– Confirming that the access levels of two users are the same, except for a few intentional differences

– Checking if two web pages use the same formatting code, although the rest of the text may vary

– Verifying that all the people in your address book who work at the same company are labeled with the same address, even though their other contact details will be different

The ability to compare items — and reconcile any settings that vary between them — should really be standard practice in every software application. This feature would be a huge time saver for users, not to mention all the errors and inconsistencies that it would prevent.

Have you ever gotten one of those statements from your health insurance company that tries to show you a breakdown of your recent claims? This type of document is one of the most convoluted things around. For any given visit to the doctor, they might show you the retail price of the visit, the discount they received off retail, the amount they paid, the amount you paid as a copay, and more. It’s way more detail than anyone needs.

There are really only two pieces of data that belong on this type of document. First, the amount that the customer is responsible for, which is typically the copay you already paid. Second, the total amount of money that you saved compared to going to the doctor without any insurance. After all, who cares whether the savings came from what the insurance company paid, versus their preferred rates with the doctor. Either way, the money saved is a benefit to you as the customer.

Insurance companies love their bureaucracy, and confusing forms and statements seem to be a part of that package. If they just provided a simplified statement like the one I’ve described, it would probably reduce the number of questions and complaints they get from confused customers. But the people designing these documents probably have no incentive to reduce costs and maximize profits. That’s a whole different department, I’m sure.

In any event, those of us who actually care about things like costs and profits should take this lesson to heart. By identifying the places where we confuse our customers with excess detail and reducing them to the bare essentials, we can simplify things for customers while reducing our own support costs.