Think of a good idea, build it, submit it to the app store. This is the recipe for failure and its the path most developers take.
Designers often advise developers to make their apps more easy to use but I now think that usable is still not enough. The most reliable way to find success on the app store is by having a decent idea and crafting it into a delightful experience (not merely a usable one).
Classics, a wildly successful ebook application, could have saved a lot of development time by using the standard scroll interface for reading ebooks, but they decided, rather, to invest in delight. That tactile page flip, the slight flap noise when the page turns over; these little details combined into an astounding experience that sold like hotcakes.
Realizing this, I looked at the current state of my iPhone app, Grades. It is a good idea with a good user experience. Trash! I am re-evaluating the design with delight in mind. Although the old UI was better than a lot of stuff on the app store, it was boring, not tactile, not delightful.
Below is the latest iteration. I won’t elaborate but this iteration would allow for lots of beautiful, tactile, and fun details that, I think, could play a primary role in the app’s success. Please comment, please critique, please disagree for the benefit of us all.
The new UI is looking great. Aiming to delight should help trigger the viral effect.
Thanks, Niraj. I agree that users are more likely going to tweet about something or show it to their friends if it doesn't just do the job but blows them away at every corner with attention to detail and delightful touches.
I like the revision. Looks nice!
Thanks, Brad!
I agree that the visual appeal is important in iPhone apps, but your forementioned books application:
read more than 20 pages, and you are unnerved by the page flapping animation and the sound it makes.
I like the design of your new app, but I hope it doesn't get too fancy
Thanks for weighing in, Arne. In my experience with Classics, I actually found myself addicted to the book I was reading and I think this was at lease partly due to the aforementioned details. Personally, I wasn't bothered by those details as I read for longer periods of time but that could just be me.
Anyhow, I think the broader point is that Classics was successful. Perhaps those details do detract from the usability of the app, but I highly doubt that Classics would have been nearly as successful without them.
This isn't to say that all apps need to have these kind of details. For example, OmniFocus, a very serious productivity app that people use many times a day, has a minimal, no nonsense interface and has done quite well.
2vyLp9 I want to say – thank you for this!