

Each layer in your app is more users lost.  - exspiro
http://nsethi.wordpress.com/2010/08/01/each-layer-in-your-app-is-more-users-lost/

======
shantanubala
I think this article doesn't do too good of a job distinguishing a conversion
funnel and the actual features of an app.

For a conversion funnel, simplicity is better. The less a person needs to do
to sign up or make a purchase, the more people will do it. It'd suck to
repetitively fill out a form with your address, name, etc. every time you
wanted to buy a song on iTunes.

On the other hand, if you're designing an application, the key _is_ to have
layers. Not layers like a conversion funnel, but layers of complexity. An app
needs to be simple on the surface (i.e. Google), but have features available
(but not prominently displayed) for people who want them. For example, Google
searches the web. For a first-time visitor, that's all it does. For me, it's a
calculator I use when I don't want to open up my application bar, it's a
dictionary, it's a meteorologist, it's a way to search Hacker News, etc.
There's a lot Google does with one input box, but it doesn't at any point in
time force you to _notice_ what it does. It just does it.

~~~
exspiro
exactly, the technology is built into the initial layer though. you aren't
clicking a calculator link are you? you just input it into the same field. so
google's initial layer is as effective as it is because the underlying
technology is powering that layer. versus an app that has a seperate link to
calculator, dictionary, weather etc.

------
nudge
The problem with this reasoning is that, in simplifying everything, you may
get more users but you may make your product less useful for some, because
you've removed features. And what if they're the most valuable customers? What
if Adobe made Photoshop much, much simpler, by removing lots of tools that
aren't used by everyone?

There are many ways to make something successful. Simplifying for the masses
is one way. It's not the only way.

~~~
slindstr
I think this article is on the right track, but I agree with you that you
shouldn't necessarily minimize the number of features you have. I think, like
the article said, your app should be known for doing one thing really really
well (i.e. Google = search) but it could also have a lot of other features.
These features should augment the one major feature that the app is known for
and they should be simple to learn so you don't overwhelm your users.

~~~
exspiro
the trick is in augmenting a simple interface with powerful technology a.k.a
added functionality.

