If someone opens my videoconferencing product 98% of the time it's they've got a scheduled call to join within the next 20 seconds. They're not going to be late for their meeting so they can read my release notes.
If someone opens my PDF viewer, 99.9% chance they want to view the PDF they just opened. Very rare someone opens the PDF reader because they're just having a look around to see if there are any interesting new features.
If someone opens my virtual whiteboard product, 95% chance they're in some sort of sprint review meeting and they want to write some virtual post-it notes right now. A tour isn't what they need.
If someone opens the ticket management product, or the expense report filing product, or the music playing product... you get the picture.
But they are so common, i don't know who designs them and makes me feel like 5yo.
You gotta understand, people will use the product you made, in a way that makes sense to them, not according to your devised "one way". And that's fine because it allows user to own his workflow using your product.
I like the "checklist" and "load sample data" approach better.
This is primary reason perhaps why my apps are growing fast.
Often these are the product managers building follow-on features that don't get the usage they want. Users aren't using them, but monthly usage is the currency of so much PM work that they have to try to draw attention to it.
Some people don't know how to operate a TV remote controller, unless it has 1 or 2 buttons.
It's protection against the frustration that a few experience: ultimately unable to use a thing or jam it. At the expense of the majority bugged by mild distraction.
Raising the visibility of something, or pointing an arrow at it is fine, but don't dim and block the rest of the UI immediately because I might need it for context to understand what the hell you want me to click next and why. If I can't do that, then it's just a forced speedrun of 20 steps that I will immediately forget.
It feels like many of these forgot that the point is to teach for the future, not to boost extremely short term interaction metrics. Showing (much less a single time) is not usually enough to teach, you need to establish context so they understand why instead of just what, and generally offer repetition.
The great secret of the industry is that it's mostly run by clueless incompetents. And their only strategy is to copy from every other product because they don't have original ideas or enough conviction to lead in a new direction. They just want to show up, punch thier timecard and go home, so we get the laziest suite of product implementation possible.
It feels like vendors just tack on the first thing that pops into their head. How do we tell users about the new feature? Pop-up dialog! That should work.
If you design for the most competent users, there's no metric for that.
If you design for the least competent users, customer support metrics get better.
Browsers are especially notorious for this. When I get a tour for a new feature, it's almost always just some new, tacked-on junk to disable. "Check out our bundled VPN", "Use Copilot to shop for socks", "You now have more privacy choices" (meaning we opted you into some invasive data-collection feature). I just want to browse the internet.
So many programs still don't have a feature where yoy can just search for the menu option you need rather than going through 10 menus.
maybe if you're a video editor coming from years within the field, the metaphors make sense? for me, having mostly done audio stuff, it was a bit of a journey.
i dont think an onboarding thing would be the solution, though
I'd go even further. If someone opens your product, they don't care about anything in your release notes as long as they are still able to join the call. Not only does nobody care about the new background effects etc. right then, they probably don't care about them at all. Maybe if someone discovers the feature and uses it, they might hunt around for it before the next meeting, but probably by the time that meeting comes around they'll be busy then as well.
More generally, most people don't care about 90% of the features of a product, just that it lets them do the one thing they need it to do, as soon as possible. If it isn't obvious how to do that one thing, making that obvious is more important than a product tour explaining it.
I often read such notes/product tours in software I already use/know, and in contrast I find it a bit stupid when they add some feature and they do not tell the users. It should not be obstructing, though. I would say the updating itself breaks the workflow more than a pop-up window or sth.
* Creation programs (image/video editors, 3D rendering... hell, even a slides program or an IDE). Doesn't mean I won't dismiss them sometimes anyways, but these are tools that often I do want to get an initial idea how to use, that I have allotted some time to play around with, and that are sufficiently complex that a tutorial is justified. These are also places were I can spend 2-5 minutes learning the basics of the tool, because whatever I am about to do with it is going to take the next few hours anyways.
* Videogames (i.e. the tutorial). For very similar reasons to the above ;)
Also, this is always on first install. Getting a tutorial on update for an authoring tool (and to a lesser extent a game) is far less likely to be welcome.
If you want to learn how to better teach new users about your product, GDC talks about video game tutorials are one of the best resource you can find
For most games I don't actually want a tutorial at all. If there is something not entirely obvious then I'd much prefer a reference sheet I can pull up when I actually want to do that thing.
Oftentimes it's less jarring to have an invisible tutorial though (a level made to exploit the new gameplay element / feature). But it depends on what you want the user to learn and the type of videogame; I don't mind a guided tour in more strategic games (RTS, turn by turn RPG, ...).
Don't get in my face when I'm trying to get task done. Ain't nobody got time for that!
Yes and this also applies to other things like videos.
I'd be curious what others think about this:
If you see a video on YouTube and choose to click it, you as the viewer already know the title of the video and have seen the thumbnail. Those things together gave you enough detail to be interested.
The first 15 seconds of the video probably doesn't need to repeat what you already know.
But on the other hand, outlining what you're about to see in the video doesn't seem like a bad idea so folks know what they're getting into.
As someone who has made hundreds of videos and have seen thousands, whenever I hear someone explain what I already know I'm immediately put into a state of "cool story, give me the information I clicked to see".
Does anyone else feel the same?
I use DeArrow to remove clickbait titles and thumbnails, so indeed, I don't need that information to be repeated. I don't mind a few seconds at the beginning, what I hate is the person rambling about why they didn't post the day before and what not. That time multiplied by the number of viewers makes me wanna cry.
Ah, the Wadsworth Constant: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-wadsworth-constant
Consider looking at how Mr. Beast does it. He explains in detail in https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6623b7720b009050313e701c/...
WRT to me: The first 15-45 seconds of a video need to convince me to keep watching. There's more videos on YouTube that I want to watch than I have time to watch, and that 15 second summary is how I decide to keep watching or move on to something else.
For the individual, consider the extension SponsorBlock. Despite the name, it can be hsed to block more than sponsored segments (and blocking sponsored segments is a configurable option if you like them for some reason. There are several "filler" categories you can choose from and it'll auto skip the exact e.g. intro length rather than needing to guess 100% of the time
It’s why Windows feels like multiple different companies desperate for your attention, with internal adverts begging you to look at their new feature. Because that team needs people using it to look good on the analytics.
Vs a company like Apple which seems to operate at a higher level, they don’t care if you use iMovie or not, it’s there if you want it but they aren’t going to push every individual feature on you.
Apple really doesn't care how apps are used, Radar issues go untouched for several releases.
EDIT: missing "management".
To name one: if you ever connect any headphones with media controls and you accidentally press one of them while no media is playing, it will open up Apple Music. Its convoluted to stop that behaviour.
Its not as bad as Microslop but it does exist.
You've got to think and care deeply about what you're creating while at the same time understanding it's of approximately zero interest to those who you're building for outside certain key moments of interaction. Try to just nail those as much as possible and beyond that, get out of the way.
I think this is the core of good design, that things make sense, are nice, and well explained to the point they are even fun to discover and explore when you care to go looking for them. If you don't care to, they're invisible and out of your way.
Guided tour does have its place where the product is a workflow, a platform offering, has bunch of features and you want to introduce the feature to them.
If you are paying 10-25k USD per year, you expect some onboarding specialist who gives instructions on integrating ACH and payroll systems etc. It is very common for non-technical folk to hop on a onboarding call.
People often try to automate that as it is expensive, but i think people prefer that human touch esp. when you are paying alot of money.
Worse yet, sometimes these tours seem to be a band-aid for an unintuitive UX. If usability was the priority, I'd discover new features on my own.
Never understood why they don't propose the update when the call has ended.
I'd much rather it prompt on app close (when I don't care how long the update will take), or just have a button in the UI that I can click at my leisure.
If you want to offer a product tour, then offer it as a small dismissible notification-thing in the corner of the normal UI. Otherwise you run into this situation while also constantly being annoying to everyone who has used your product before.
Product tours and tutorial wizards and all those educational experiences can be excellent, but they must not get in the way. Visible is fine, interruptive is not.
Because their goal metric is number of tasks closed/features delivered (and this counts as one), not customers satisfied.
Plus, social parroting - a misconception that if it's popular and everyone does it it "can't be wrong".
Whose idea was it to show me a “what’s new” popup of all the jira tickets they closed in the last sprint?
What’s new? Nothing is new. It works just like it used to. Just take my money and leave me alone, please.
Every dang tour wanted to show me their endless litany of features, often leaning into enterprise stuff. So much so that it didn't involve a chance to actually use the tool for what I wanted.
I just wanted to try documenting something and seeing how fast and easy it was but every form of a tour wanted to side track me.
Sometimes people would have enough time for a product tour and still skip it because no one wants to be forced to do anything.
While they do make the point about introducing new features, they don’t address how to make an interrupt-driven announcement successful with existing users.
Has anyone seen a good way to make ongoing update announcements
Today I wish there was something like this but made for tutorials and wizards. If someone presses "Help" they should not have to go online on your website just to literally never find any help for their problems.
We are in the golden age of LLMs, yet nobody uses LLMs to explore and discover locally hosted knowledge bases ... which are in my opinion the single most useful use case of them. You could build such a great UX with it.
For example, I'm selfhosting a lot of archived wikis via a kiwix server. Devdocs, wikipedia, dev and cyber related wikis. Having an LLM assistant running on those locally was probably the best improvement for my learning experience. And the workflow is integrated into my custom New Tab page, it's literally a search field on my homepage of the browser, so it's always accessible.
Like a lot of times when I am using Lightroom I just shot 3000 photos at a sports game and feel under the gun to select a few out and develop them or I am using Acrobat to handle some stressful paperwork which is late. I close 100s if not 1000s of modal dialogs that never should have been opened every day and just don't need another one.
It's bad from the viewpoint of Adobe because I wind up dismissing these messages out of hand.
Adobe wants me to see the value I am getting from my Creative Cloud subscription, like I am likely to keep paying for it if I enjoy more features in more of the products. Like lately I discovered Adobe Fonts is great: like I find looking for free fonts is the most depressing thing in web development and graphic design, I can spend hours looking at fonts and making comps and thinking "I can't stand that 'k'". Adobe Fonts on the other hand has quality fonts that are well organized and often I can put in 15 minutes and walk out with something that works so well with my brand that if I want to set stuff in that font with Pillow of course I am going to plunk down $90 and buy it -- I don't feel bad at all that the fonts are tied to Adobe tools and my CC subscription.
In terms of execution you just expect something like this to be crap. The integration of Adobe Fonts into Photoshop is broken: it can lock Photoshop hard and force you to kill the process. On the other hand it works great with Illustrator. Marketing-driven development always seems to have a lack of empathy and attention to quality that in the end is self-defeating.
---
Lately I've gotten hooked on the mobile games Arknights which has extensive lore, too many game modes to count and very complex mechanics and hundreds of characters who have unique abilities (e.g. even the "trash" 3-star characters usually have something special about them and are designed to make teams that punch above their weight)
Arknights gamifies learning the game and engaging with the mechanics by offering daily, weekly, and campaign rewards for taking actions, completing levels, developing characters, etc. This is part of a number of mechanisms that gradually get you up to speed on the game mechanics, reveal the world, etc. These kind of mechanisms, used gently, could work for applications software.
But I think timing is everything. One of the most annoying people in downtown Ithaca is a panhandler who comes up from behind and starts demanding money or the bandanna off your head, he doesn't bother to make eye contact, he doesn't look to see if you're receptive or for a moment when you might be open, he just makes demands and gets angry when you deny or ignore him. I give money to panhandlers quite often if they engage me person-to-person and are agreeable but this guy is like so much application software today.
Every time I start on a new job, I have to click through Slack's, Github's and many other dev tools' stupid guided tours for the hundredth time
Not only do I close the page but I typically lose interest in whatever I may have wanted to do on that page in the first place, and generally just put my phone down or close my laptop and do something else.
The web basically died several years ago for me. It was fun while it lasted.
"We noticed you're using an ad blocker"
Well I noticed you're running 10+ different trackers.
Cookies that are strictly necessary for the functionality (auth, user preferences, shopping cart, etc...) of the site don't need user consent.
I've also noticed blocking consent/informational banners of sorts when connected to a US VPN becoming more popular
Of course in reality enforcement of this is non-existent. Just yesterday I had an especially egregious popup where dismissing it required about 7 button presses (selecting "other options", then manually toggling on 5 categories of use before I was allowed to click "save settings")
> Of course in reality enforcement of this is non-existent
Indeed that was of course worth noting
Incremental games do an amazing job at this (things like Universal Paperclips, A Dark Room, etc); parts of the game are revealed to you as you need them and it's often a fun surprise. I don't think the same thing is directly applicable to productivity apps, but I wonder if something could be taken from the pattern.
This is timely -- I'm coding an app at the moment and had the fleeting thought that "hey I should do a new user onboarding tour thingy" and then remembered that in general I skip them, so I havne't made one :)
For those an ingame encyclopedia and/or external wiki is a much better solution.
On the other hand, I think it's interesting to compare the dislike in these comments (and elsewhere) to "RTFM" culture. What's the primary difference? That you can read the manual or use the product at your discretion? e.g. `ls` doesn't forcefully open the man page when you run it for the first time?
(I'm aware of the goomba fallacy and that these are likely two different groups of people - I still think it's interesting!)
First thing I do in a new app or new web service is click all the stuff, try and get a lay of the land and understand the UI metaphors. It's much harder to do if there is a twee, condescending guided tour "hyuck hey there champ didja know the gear icon that says Settings next to it is where you can change some settings?" stopping me from doing that, and names hidden behind hover popovers and crappy monochrome SVGs of....shapes to serve as icons.
I am very unlikely to need every part of every tool, app, or service I use. I need to do one thing with it right away, and I need to find my way there and experiment to see how it works. I don't give a shit if I can have it waft my farts if I'm trying to compress a gif or something, the fart-wafter button just needs to be clear so at a time when I go "huh what does this do" I can figure it out non-destructively to see if I'm interested. If you need a big popup saying "We just added the Fart-Wafter! Want to know how to find it?", you've failed, utterly.
Instead add the killer feature: a feature search box ala Google Docs.
Plus, there's no way I'm going to remember whatever the tour tells me by that time anyway. To actually learn the product you need experience to lock in what the manual says
Correct, yes.
1) Push vs pull. As you identified, ls doesn't stop you from doing the thing you wanted to push the man page on you when you don't need/want it. ls just does the thing you ask. man also just does the thing you ask. The product tour is a sign that the developer doesn't understand consent and is trying to get the user to do what the developer wants, not what the user wants.
2) It's infantilizing. The product tour assumes the user doesn't know what they want, and doesn't know how to RTFM to learn how to do the thing they want to do. It treats the user as having no agency.
2.5) It's a tacit admission that TFM sucks and R-ing it isn't a productive use of your time.
Just a couple examples offhand..
Discord (constant tooltips covering the screen to harass me to try "Nitro", or some new AI BS I am never going to even remotely consider trying)
Miro ("Sign in with Google" modal in the top right, "CANVAS 26" conference signup site stripe covering the top of the screen, frequent "What's new" modal covering the entire app, "How likely are you to recommend this product or service to a friend or co-worker?" net promoter score survey covering the bottom of the screen, which makes zero sense whatsoever as an enterprise user)
JIRA ("Try dark theme" tooltip covering the top right of the page)
Figma ("Reconnect with Community" tooltip covering some content on the left)
Teams keep building product tours because the other option is to invest heavily in trial-and-error user research to optimize the onboarding experience. That is not only more expensive in terms of time and resources, but also requires greater alignment of priorities.
In my experience (I work in product design), introducing product tours is usually a band-aid for deeper UX problems.
Products with an excellent onboarding experience that goes beyond the “click next” pop-up tend to have an excellent user experience too, because they take the time to think about the usage story.
Imagine you walked into a convenience store and the owner was like "Hey you need to take the tour first!"
I can't think of a single time I've looked at a product tour and thought "well, I'm really glad they told me that, I never would have figured that out.
What the product tour I think often misses is that people don't want to learn your entire tool at one time.
They came to do one thing, that one thing needs to be brain dead simple.
Over time, you can show people what else they can do. But a product tour isn't the way to do that.
I think progressive UIs where you expose more and more to the user over time is the way to go.
If you're thinking "but I have so many features and capabilities this person needs" you probably haven't identified what the one thing people are paying you for is.
"Did you know that in California all gas stations are required to provide you with free air and water for your car?"
Popups are a great way to get your content ignored.
They'll be reintroduced under a new name in a decade or two with endless self-congratulation. Same as physical car controls.
Here's a solution off the top of my head: have a dedicate "info" button at the OS level. Holding the button disables normal interaction, highlights all inspectable elements, and allows you to click on each one for a description. Like "inspect element" in the browser.
This is a really cool idea. Agreed! Wish something like this actually existed.
I've got a task to accomplish, I wasn't just sitting around with nothing to do.
Imagine you get in your car to drive to work, and the dashboard displays a pop-up that tries to show you the latest feature. No!
Too bad I didn't get to work there for long but I loved their stance that everybody should personally make safety the first priority, not just because the company requires you to do so but because your safety really is your priority.
So yes, this was before 2014 but I still think these kind of "training" and feedback should be a two way street, not a series of next I have to press to get the software to shut up.
Yet onboarding is the holy grail of corporate products (maybe coz it feels like powerpoint presentation of the whole product?) and the holy grail of marketing brainwashing - carefully composed sequences of known psychological tricks and manipulations to "convert" people.
P.S. I'm not sure these floating tasks lists are much better. They always feel like unnatural pressure into something you don't need to do, aka. hardsell again. I came to the product to solve my tasks, not yours.
And the other reason is because most users probably have day jobs and need to get something done.
after that its determining how people to digest info, some like docs (me), others want to sit thru a video, others NEED a person to guide them in person, some like tooltips, checklists, etc.
i'm not saying you need to litter your app with this stuff, but i don't think there is some magical UX pattern that always works.
The best UX is using obvious and standard design, plus a searchable menu / command palette.
In the US engineers don't get that ring and they implement product tours.
(FWIW, I'm not aware of any country where it's common for software folks to wear one)
It’s a great article, thanks!
It's a writing reviewer app, and the landing page is the product. It's literally a document with a critique. You can write in it, use the editor, even delete the whole page.
I always skip tours, but I think this kind of thing (if your product can support it) is much better. Then again, this isn't so much a "you've logged in, now let us teach you how to use this product" as a "welcome, here's what this product does".
Sorry but in many startup cases it's by design. See: got a KPI increase (email is collected), but as the user left there's no AWS resource usage! Profit!
... which incidentally always have a skip button.
Why most ads on Youtube gets get skipped
etc etc
Atlassian is particularly enraging, especially if you're dealing with setting up "new" accounts. I've worked with your shitware for a decade now, I know how it works, DO NOT FORCE ME TO MAKE TEN CLICKS TO GET RID OF A FUCKING INTRO.
Rather, invest your time into a good, logical UI and, most importantly, good AND CURRENT documentation.
but this time, make apps actually respect it :)
Or better: tie it to an OS-level screen-reader AI that explains what's what's on the spot.
Because I want you to leave me the fuck alone.
I HATE that. Let me play with the toolset you give me "in the field". Don't interrupt my fucking game/workflow to show me the feature of the moment YOU want me to use right now. (For applications software in 2026, this is likely to be some stupid AI integration.)
