Photo by Magdiel Damas on Unsplash — *Photo by* *Magdiel Damas* on *Unsplash*

Inspired by Jared Spool and Kim Goodwin

Focus diminishes peripheral vision. Our work draws us in — tipping headlong, end over end towards the object of our attention. For makers, it’s an occupational hazard. We’re captivated by what we’re creating — where it can be improved, and imagining what it can become. Yet, somehow, even with a maniacal focus on every nuance of our creation, it’s no guarantee things will work out.

We’ve heard the Silicon Valley gurus speak of ‘embracing failure’ and how ‘the best product doesn’t always win’. Sure, we understand it — we just don’t believe it. It might be true, but not for us. Deep inside we harbor a quiet hope that we are special, that we can beat the odds with a better product. The idea that success rests on what we’re building is intoxicating.

But why doesn’t the ‘best product’ always win? One reason is that there is no such thing — ‘best’ doesn’t exist as a disembodied list of features, no matter what Harvey balls tell you. While people often do make purchase decisions on specifications, they prioritize them differently depending on the situation they are in.

Consider a professional wedding photographer. In the field, they need to review images on the fly and swap lenses between cameras, and of course, portability, as well as, durability matters. In the studio, connecting to external lighting systems and monitor tethering is essential — gear can border on the unwieldy and be perfectly fine.

Does one ideal set of specifications exist for our wedding photographer? Are megapixels the final arbiter of image quality? How does portability fare in the ranking? What about the price? Will that be an equal factor for all their gear? This is why Canon doesn’t make just one camera, even for professionals.

Note that even a single human (ahem, persona) will have very different ‘requirements’ based on the situation they find themselves in. Don’t believe me? I ask you to consider meetings and how important webcams and microphones are to you today as opposed to 2019. Presumably, you are the same person of course.

Too often we belly up to the workbench and grab a hammer without making the simple decision of not only who we care about, but also, the situations they find themselves in. How can you know what to build without first knowing details like these? How can you make the right trade-offs without understanding the context of use? Product is a game of emphasis and to do it well, we not only have to know who our users are but also how they plan on using the product.

If we forge ahead, guided by a universal feature list, these situational differences may end up exiled as ‘edge cases’. When that happens, consider briefly that the feature you’re treating as unimportant might just be essential when viewed from the perch of a different situation. In our drive for simplicity, we might be failing our users when it matters most.

“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” — Albert Einstein

Here’s the upshot — to make something people want, don’t start with a list of features (what the product will do). There is plenty of time for that. Instead, begin by understanding both who you care about, and the situations they find themselves in — that’s a foundation you can build on.

Who + How = ❤️

Much appreciation for the writings of Jared Spool and Kim Goodwin on this topic. I added the ❤️ emoji just for Jared.