> A usability professional would have caught that immediately - and would have been way cheaper.
To be fair, lots of risk-mitigation investments are cheaper in hindsight, once you know the risk actually got realized.
To be fair, lots of risk-mitigation investments are cheaper in hindsight, once you know the risk actually got realized.
Explain on top of that the scheme for the interest payments and he will notice that the UI does not fit to that purpose at all. Why would paying interests involve a wash account and a real money transfer at all? If that's the job to do the UI has to facilitate it directly, not with crazy schemes. That's Aufgabenangemessenheit (to be fit for the purpose, not sure about the official translation) and it's the highest dialogue principle. That got completely ignored here. This was never usability tested, I'm certain - or if it was the results were ignored.
There seems to be a huge number of fields-of-expertise that potentially have bearing on my life or work. E.g., urologists, transmission repair techs, indoor air quality experts, sleep therapists, house painters, early childhood education consultants, therapists/counselors, sports trainers, physical therapists, housecleaners, etc.
In my experience, most of those fields have practitioners who are sure they could help you avoid future problems; you just have to hire them to see the benefit! Or at the very least, invest time in helping them understand your particular situation so they can give more detailed advice.
I could easily believe that most of them are correct, too. But each of us, even in a business setting, has limited funds and time/bandwidth to deal with such specialists.
In my post above, I was trying to say that knowing which of these many specialists one should have engaged with isn't always clear ahead of time. E.g., maybe I didn't need to bring my car to a transmission repair shop, when the only real problem I'd have in the near year is back pain from poor sitting posture.
In the first case, the teams basic competence is definitely in question. In the second, hopefully this sort of thing causes an improvement in the approach. Point being, this isn't really one of the vast number of possible things that could be looked at, rather it is a fundamental part of the bread-and-butter work of the team that shipped this product.
That being said, a lot of E2E front end stuff is done really poorly because of the way that these systems are sold and serviced. Sometimes they end up in bucket 1 (team unable or not allowed to do a competent job) by design.
You are right, it's not as obvious that this is a half a billion dollar issue that usability work would have avoided as it is obvious that the UI is flawed. I jumped to "A usability professional would have noted that it's the wrong approach" and from there simplified to "see how flawed it is".