Regards,
I've been watching numerous platforms change their page layouts, program formats, functionality, page to page links, etc for quite a few years and I believe modern programming reached its zenith a few years back and is now on a continuing downward spiral. The result is lost efficiency in completing simple tasks, reviewing data and information as part of the day-to-day internet entrepreneur business. Many tasks have doubled the amount of time it takes to complete them. Too many platforms have gone to a pretty and fancy look but have lost simple efficiency functionality. Does eBay fall into this category? Yes, as many have posted here BUT they are certainly not the only company to fall into that trap.
I Buy a lot of my inventory online, so this phenomenon negatively affects Buyers too and not just Sellers. So instead of being able to peruse through a 500 lot online auction and create a Watch list in 20 minutes it now takes close to twice that. That is happening to a lot of Buyers so the net result is that somebody's auction is not being reviewed because the time to do that was spent on a different auction.
The other issue is managing each unique platform. eBay makes it easy for a Buyer to set up their funding source one time yet purchase from millions of individual Sellers.
One auction platform I work with sponsors auction houses in all 50 states so it is similar to eBay in that I enter my funding source info one time and it is used on any auction I bid on.
As companies break off from these type venues and create their own sites or use other and newer programming formats then EACH site requires a discrete Username, Password and funding source. The newer programs also require more pointing, clicking and scrolling. So, if I have to update or change my preferred funding source I would do it once on eBay or that other platform ... BUT for the individual auction firms it means for each and everyone.
Then on top of all of that one has to learn the new formats because while they are similar they are not all the same.
It is easy to see how we got here but it is hard to imagine what it will be like in the next 5 - 10 - 20 years ... but I just don't see it migrating back to a more efficient use of time through programming.
@ten_o_nine wrote:Do you think this is all because of not having end user testing, seems to me that most companies now try to depend on developers more that business analysts. I have been a user of eBay for 20 years and never was invited to test anything. Users know what is more productive for the business side, not developers. eBay developers or whoever comes up with an idea and shove it down the throats of users until they like it by everyday use and say, we told you you'd like it.
We are the users and eBay should create a new board in the community called "User requirements" and look at solving those issues if they want to grow. not just creating "How to open a business"
You have touched on a key point here and yes, everything should be tested before launching or approving and it is not always about the functionality but the practicality of the change. I can share a real world example with a complex software program I have been running since 2000. AutoCAD LT is a compact version of the full blown AutoCAD software for computer aided drafting. It was developed for users who did not require some of the more complex functionality of the full blow version which at one time cost $ 1,500 per year for ONE station compared to around $ 300 for the LT (or "Light" version).
The "LT" (or "light) version does pretty much everything the full blown version does except generate 3D orthographic projections. It is a great product for doing plant layouts and designing in 2D and suited my needs from 2000 to present.
Now, what happened around 2014 was the program designers came up with the idea of using what they called "Ribbons" for drawing pallets instead of the traditional pull down menu choice to perform a function (like "Draw > Circle or Draw > Rectangle). What transpired was to have all the normally hidden functions displayed in the Ribbons with larger target points to click on, small icons illustrating what the function was, etc. The end result was that there was very little screen left to actually draw on if one had all their normally used functions accessible via the Ribbons display. Through my direct contact with the company I learned that for the most part the programmers were NOT users and regarding the Ribbons they provided a means to go back to the "Classic" layout ... which from what I understand most Users did (I did in a heartbeat LOL).
So like eBay and other venues they made it look pretty but it lost efficiency for accomplishing the basic tasks of using the software.
Now, just to give some perspective to the AutoCAD story, below is a screen shot of a drawing and the basic screen layout. I added arrows along the top pointing to the pull down menus ... all orange arrows except the green one pointing to the pull-down menu I selected. Each pull-down menu has numerous functions to select from. Most Users don't use every single function based on the type of drawings they produce. Users can also customize their tool tip (right click on a mouse) and add many functions they use on a regular basis there minimizing the pull-down menu access. But to replace the pull-down menus with Ribbons containing functions with icons was nothing more than a waste of screen space.
So, and again to your point, Users really hold the key to whether or not a change is 1) functional 2) practical and 3) an improvement in efficiency ... program design changes need to be "tested" by Users before being implemented ... a concept lost on eBay and sadly many other companies as well.
Believe it or not many of the same comments and complaints here about eBay's program changes I heard during my direct experience with AutoCAD ... yep ... been there done that (way too many times).
@retro_entertainment_collectibles wrote:
@transamcc wrote:One fact that has stood for 20+ years now is that it is much cheaper to add hardware resources in the form of both physical and virtual memory and tell the staff "make it work" than to hire COMPETENT programming staff. Hence, most of the efficiency and transparency is lost due to the cumbersome subroutines clutter and conflicting redundancy that the "programmers" come up with just to get a result at all!
Can't argue w/ ya. Once was a time when all was deemed "Bloatware" as the old school coders such as myself dealt with Processors far less sophisticated than today's w/ limited hardware resources and just isTerrible=(terrible+terrible+terrible) *2; tools. Then came the bloat and coders coming out of schools taught not care so much about efficiency vs work in vs work out. Early in the web days there was far more attention paid to efficiency in much Enterprise level work basically same reasoning.
I often ask myself, "Wordpress Powers 40%+ of the Internet? Quick I need a beer or chocolate!
I've worked on code whereby it's, "make it work better but make certain you don't break what's working just in case it isn't better!" WT<bleep>!
@retro_entertainment_collectibles I've read a number of your posts, you will appreciate this ... my first computer class was as a senior in high school, it consisted of a teletype machine, large roll of wide format tractor fed paper and a phone modem ... yep, "call" the local college computer, logon then back and forth communication using Basic. You remember right? During college in the early 80s I had one course in Fortran and one in Cobol ... well, that is when I decided I would be a User and not a Programmer LOL!
Fast forward to today and The Community, it is unmistakably clear that the Membership here has an ENORMOUS amount of experience with regard to identifying what IS and what IS NOT good programming and that would be for both handheld and desk top type devices. For eBay NOT to tap into that "natural resource" is beyond comprehension.
I know some members here will say they at one time were asked their opinions or were part of meetings with eBay, etc. but the bottom line is eBay never pushed to create a group of (User) Members to assist them with the venue's programming functionality, practicality and efficiency ... if they had then I suspect we wouldn't be having this pleasant conversation LOL!
@mr_lincoln wrote:
@ten_o_nine wrote:Do you think this is all because of not having end user testing, seems to me that most companies now try to depend on developers more that business analysts. I have been a user of eBay for 20 years and never was invited to test anything. Users know what is more productive for the business side, not developers. eBay developers or whoever comes up with an idea and shove it down the throats of users until they like it by everyday use and say, we told you you'd like it.
We are the users and eBay should create a new board in the community called "User requirements" and look at solving those issues if they want to grow. not just creating "How to open a business"
You have touched on a key point here and yes, everything should be tested before launching or approving and it is not always about the functionality but the practicality of the change. I can share a real world example with a complex software program I have been running since 2000. AutoCAD LT is a compact version of the full blown AutoCAD software for computer aided drafting. It was developed for users who did not require some of the more complex functionality of the full blow version which at one time cost $ 1,500 per year for ONE station compared to around $ 300 for the LT (or "Light" version).
The "LT" (or "light) version does pretty much everything the full blown version does except generate 3D orthographic projections. It is a great product for doing plant layouts and designing in 2D and suited my needs from 2000 to present.
Now, what happened around 2014 was the program designers came up with the idea of using what they called "Ribbons" for drawing pallets instead of the traditional pull down menu choice to perform a function (like "Draw > Circle or Draw > Rectangle). What transpired was to have all the normally hidden functions displayed in the Ribbons with larger target points to click on, small icons illustrating what the function was, etc. The end result was that there was very little screen left to actually draw on if one had all their normally used functions accessible via the Ribbons display. Through my direct contact with the company I learned that for the most part the programmers were NOT users and regarding the Ribbons they provided a means to go back to the "Classic" layout ... which from what I understand most Users did (I did in a heartbeat LOL).
So like eBay and other venues they made it look pretty but it lost efficiency for accomplishing the basic tasks of using the software.
Now, just to give some perspective to the AutoCAD story, below is a screen shot of a drawing and the basic screen layout. I added arrows along the top pointing to the pull down menus ... all orange arrows except the green one pointing to the pull-down menu I selected. Each pull-down menu has numerous functions to select from. Most Users don't use every single function based on the type of drawings they produce. Users can also customize their tool tip (right click on a mouse) and add many functions they use on a regular basis there minimizing the pull-down menu access. But to replace the pull-down menus with Ribbons containing functions with icons was nothing more than a waste of screen space.
So, and again to your point, Users really hold the key to whether or not a change is 1) functional 2) practical and 3) an improvement in efficiency ... program design changes need to be "tested" by Users before being implemented ... a concept lost on eBay and sadly many other companies as well.
Believe it or not many of the same comments and complaints here about eBay's program changes I heard during my direct experience with AutoCAD ... yep ... been there done that (way too many times).
Oh I suck at this CAD stuff LOL.
"Well Mr. Lincoln please do get hold of Mr. Franklin and Mr. Jefferson because we need that AutoCad diagram to fit on an iPhone screen and be navigable."
@retro_entertainment_collectibles wrote:
@mr_lincoln wrote:
@ten_o_nine wrote:Do you think this is all because of not having end user testing, seems to me that most companies now try to depend on developers more that business analysts. I have been a user of eBay for 20 years and never was invited to test anything. Users know what is more productive for the business side, not developers. eBay developers or whoever comes up with an idea and shove it down the throats of users until they like it by everyday use and say, we told you you'd like it.
We are the users and eBay should create a new board in the community called "User requirements" and look at solving those issues if they want to grow. not just creating "How to open a business"
You have touched on a key point here and yes, everything should be tested before launching or approving and it is not always about the functionality but the practicality of the change. I can share a real world example with a complex software program I have been running since 2000. AutoCAD LT is a compact version of the full blown AutoCAD software for computer aided drafting. It was developed for users who did not require some of the more complex functionality of the full blow version which at one time cost $ 1,500 per year for ONE station compared to around $ 300 for the LT (or "Light" version).
The "LT" (or "light) version does pretty much everything the full blown version does except generate 3D orthographic projections. It is a great product for doing plant layouts and designing in 2D and suited my needs from 2000 to present.
Now, what happened around 2014 was the program designers came up with the idea of using what they called "Ribbons" for drawing pallets instead of the traditional pull down menu choice to perform a function (like "Draw > Circle or Draw > Rectangle). What transpired was to have all the normally hidden functions displayed in the Ribbons with larger target points to click on, small icons illustrating what the function was, etc. The end result was that there was very little screen left to actually draw on if one had all their normally used functions accessible via the Ribbons display. Through my direct contact with the company I learned that for the most part the programmers were NOT users and regarding the Ribbons they provided a means to go back to the "Classic" layout ... which from what I understand most Users did (I did in a heartbeat LOL).
So like eBay and other venues they made it look pretty but it lost efficiency for accomplishing the basic tasks of using the software.
Now, just to give some perspective to the AutoCAD story, below is a screen shot of a drawing and the basic screen layout. I added arrows along the top pointing to the pull down menus ... all orange arrows except the green one pointing to the pull-down menu I selected. Each pull-down menu has numerous functions to select from. Most Users don't use every single function based on the type of drawings they produce. Users can also customize their tool tip (right click on a mouse) and add many functions they use on a regular basis there minimizing the pull-down menu access. But to replace the pull-down menus with Ribbons containing functions with icons was nothing more than a waste of screen space.
So, and again to your point, Users really hold the key to whether or not a change is 1) functional 2) practical and 3) an improvement in efficiency ... program design changes need to be "tested" by Users before being implemented ... a concept lost on eBay and sadly many other companies as well.
Believe it or not many of the same comments and complaints here about eBay's program changes I heard during my direct experience with AutoCAD ... yep ... been there done that (way too many times).
Oh I suck at this CAD stuff LOL.
"Well Mr. Lincoln please do get hold of Mr. Franklin and Mr. Jefferson because we need that AutoCad diagram to fit on an iPhone screen and be navigable."
@retro_entertainment_collectibles You want to do WHAT???
Well, the Dick Tracy wrist watch is now a reality so I guess putting AutoCAD on an iPhone would be possible ... just not real practical LOL! The Stylus pen/pointer would be a must.
@mr_lincoln wrote:
@retro_entertainment_collectibles wrote:
@mr_lincoln wrote:
@ten_o_nine wrote:Do you think this is all because of not having end user testing, seems to me that most companies now try to depend on developers more that business analysts. I have been a user of eBay for 20 years and never was invited to test anything. Users know what is more productive for the business side, not developers. eBay developers or whoever comes up with an idea and shove it down the throats of users until they like it by everyday use and say, we told you you'd like it.
We are the users and eBay should create a new board in the community called "User requirements" and look at solving those issues if they want to grow. not just creating "How to open a business"
You have touched on a key point here and yes, everything should be tested before launching or approving and it is not always about the functionality but the practicality of the change. I can share a real world example with a complex software program I have been running since 2000. AutoCAD LT is a compact version of the full blown AutoCAD software for computer aided drafting. It was developed for users who did not require some of the more complex functionality of the full blow version which at one time cost $ 1,500 per year for ONE station compared to around $ 300 for the LT (or "Light" version).
The "LT" (or "light) version does pretty much everything the full blown version does except generate 3D orthographic projections. It is a great product for doing plant layouts and designing in 2D and suited my needs from 2000 to present.
Now, what happened around 2014 was the program designers came up with the idea of using what they called "Ribbons" for drawing pallets instead of the traditional pull down menu choice to perform a function (like "Draw > Circle or Draw > Rectangle). What transpired was to have all the normally hidden functions displayed in the Ribbons with larger target points to click on, small icons illustrating what the function was, etc. The end result was that there was very little screen left to actually draw on if one had all their normally used functions accessible via the Ribbons display. Through my direct contact with the company I learned that for the most part the programmers were NOT users and regarding the Ribbons they provided a means to go back to the "Classic" layout ... which from what I understand most Users did (I did in a heartbeat LOL).
So like eBay and other venues they made it look pretty but it lost efficiency for accomplishing the basic tasks of using the software.
Now, just to give some perspective to the AutoCAD story, below is a screen shot of a drawing and the basic screen layout. I added arrows along the top pointing to the pull down menus ... all orange arrows except the green one pointing to the pull-down menu I selected. Each pull-down menu has numerous functions to select from. Most Users don't use every single function based on the type of drawings they produce. Users can also customize their tool tip (right click on a mouse) and add many functions they use on a regular basis there minimizing the pull-down menu access. But to replace the pull-down menus with Ribbons containing functions with icons was nothing more than a waste of screen space.
So, and again to your point, Users really hold the key to whether or not a change is 1) functional 2) practical and 3) an improvement in efficiency ... program design changes need to be "tested" by Users before being implemented ... a concept lost on eBay and sadly many other companies as well.
Believe it or not many of the same comments and complaints here about eBay's program changes I heard during my direct experience with AutoCAD ... yep ... been there done that (way too many times).
Oh I suck at this CAD stuff LOL.
"Well Mr. Lincoln please do get hold of Mr. Franklin and Mr. Jefferson because we need that AutoCad diagram to fit on an iPhone screen and be navigable."
@retro_entertainment_collectibles You want to do WHAT???
Well, the Dick Tracy wrist watch is now a reality so I guess putting AutoCAD on an iPhone would be possible ... just not real practical LOL! The Stylus pen/pointer would be a must.
Exactly!
So we've the seller side mobile/not interface and consumer side along with finite real-estate especially mobile. Mobile phone screen resolution can match 1080P from a common PC monitor but navigating becomes far more difficult as everything on the phone be tiny. That's why "Mobile First" and why present a completely different interface towards a PC? Twice as much to maintain. I'm a PC Guy, I do most everything on PC vs smartphone several reasons. I find the PC easier navigate, easier read and I dont care have my eyeballs take on new shapes staring at small devices. I've three monitors as needed for tasks at hand be that eBay (Need one), development, more space the merrier and iRacing, three monitors.
But I cant just walk around and as I see folks surfing the web w/ their smartphones smack them out of their respective hands with some catchy statement, "Dont do that! You'll get Chirpees and there is no Tweetment for that!"
I dont tend shop w/ my smartphone especially likes of eBay... Oh yeah, I get to see a few listings and then go into the scroll-a-thon hoping I don't accidently activate some link sending me off places I don't wish attend! Happens CONSTANTLY to me when I try, solution is simple... Every new born child need have a stylus as a sixth finger and the rest of us can do retro-fit by simply jamming one between one's fingers and waiting for the bleeding to stop.
When I did use mobile at weBay I noticed descriptions required my fellow human beans to touch a link. Now that, that's very very very myBAD! How to get Not as Described 101 claims as the beans never read the description... TITLE/PICTURE/DESCRIPTION IN FULL should always be first but as I said, I've not looked lately at mobile weBay on my Smartphone.
MeThinks might be good idea for items over a reasoned amount of price that buyers ought be forced to read and acknowledge descriptions. Won't stop the scammerrite's from the Planet Theft doing their thing but might well cut down on those I'm-Pulse buyers who dont read descriptions but make assuh-yume-I-tations that because something is listed as new, like new, fabulii, unfabulii or eggcept-a-bowl actually IS.
Reading is fun-de'-mental as I always say!
On the consumer side
