When developing a technology product or service, the question "will people figure out how to use this product" is debated by the product marketing and development team.
There are products which assume that people are smart (i.e. Google), and those that assume that users need extra guidance (i.e. Yahoo!). The answer is not so simple, but the way a product team preceives their target audience will determine their product's fundamental structure.
The fact that Google won the search wars with a white screen, a text box, and a "Search" button is pretty amazing. It takes tremendous confidence in the imagination, curiosity and comprehension of the average human to go to market with this interface. No tutorials or help screens. Just a text box.
Yahoo! provides a well structured guide to a variety of news, sports, finance and other information. Results of the click-through navigation are therefore more predictable and limited than a Google search result (for better or worse). The fact that Yahoo! generates more unique visitors than Google supports the idea that consumers prefer a practical user interface and structured information.
So who is correct - Yahoo! or Google? Both are hugely popular, but their difference in approaches to navigation and presention of information create a very different user experience. Google's "people are smart" approach takes a little more trial and error in order to produce the data results than Yahoo! the first time you use a service.
The fact that you can simply type in a street address, city and state in Google's search bar in order to find a map is great once you realize how this works. Yahoo! had trained users to first click on the Yahoo! Maps link, then enter the Street Address in the "Street Address" field, the City in the "City" field, and the State abbreviations in the "State" field. Makes sense right? Yet the number of clicks, tabs and data entry to produce same results to generate a map in Yahoo! was hugely more involved than to retrieve a Google map. Now Yahoo! pretty much offers a map the same way as Google, but to my recollection, that was not always the case.
Google seems to appeal to a person's imagination and joy of discovery. There are many times while using different Google technologies, where I may happen on a new technology solution that I had not anticipated or originally was seeking. Google's "points of interest" maps was one of the "wow, cool idea" moments. On the other hand, I prefer Yahoo! for popular information such as sports scores and news updates, as I find Yahoo's homepage easy to click to find mass media information.
Yahoo! does well by providing an intuitive easy, well organized user interface. Without thinking too hard, you can get to the information you need, though it will generally require more user navigation than a Google approach.
Google excels by presenting results based on a best guess thought of what a user would be interested in, rather then expecting the user to specify much of the particulars of what they wish to find. This is part of the Google magic.
The Yahoo! approach is a safer bet, as many consumers may not take the time to learn the clever user interface approaches of a new technology company. As well, the clever user interface tricks may be too complex to be learned.
Everyone has their own answer to the "People are Smart?" question. I am amazed at how intelligent the average human is*, but am also well aware that many consumers are impatient, lazy, distracted and have a tiny attention span. So if you do decide to take the Google approach, it is important that the user experience appeals to a consumers sense of adventure and curiosity long enough to appreciate your cool new approach before they get impatient, frustrated or bored. Back to the "people are smart", I believe that boredom not lack of intelligence is the biggest challenge to overcome when introducing a novel new approach.
* when they are motivated
Product design and development is a give in take between product features and functionality versus simplicity and ease of use. Google, eBay and Apple have thrived by believing that "people are smart" and giving them a reason to use their brains to learn a new way to approach an old problem. Providing these riskier novel approaches are very difficult, and that is why few companies venture and succeed with the "people are smart" approach. Either approach you take, the end goal should be to service and delight your customers, which Yahoo! and Google both continue to do.
The end of an era. Meg Whitman has guided eBay for the last 10 years. While other promising dot com startups failed to live up to expectations, Meg has led eBay beyond the most optimistic projections. Along the way she added a big hit - PayPal, and a big miss - Skype.
