Why the Gmail App is Unsatisfying For New Users

Gmail has more than 1.8 billion active users, with 44% of Americans opting to use it as their email solution—in other words; it's huge.

And whilst Gmail is generally a great experience, the vast majority of your on-screen exposure will be after the initial set-up.

And ultimately, what can product-builders like us learn from their mistakes?

I'll often ask product managers to list every screen in a particular user journey—an exercise that sounds simple, but is difficult in practice.

For example:

Typically, one team will design what they believe to be an optimal user journey, but then over time stuff gets added into the product without care.

To be clear; this is an operational problem for most companies, because different departments / roles have influence over the same product.

i.e., developers may add in a cookie notice at the last minute, or the customer support team may request that a live chat be added in, which causes an imbalance elsewhere.

That's how you end up with a 5-pop-up-sandwich like Gmail:

The preventative measure here is to be aware of these additional steps, and try to reduce the noise wherever value isn't added.

Fundamentally, it's a lack of oversight.

There's a persuasive technique often referred to as the 'foot-in-the-door' effect.

See: 👞 FITD Effect.

This is obviously effective in sales, but the same principle can be subtly utilised in product design.

Google employ this technique, to encourage you to share your data broadly amongst their other products and services.

As I demonstrated in the case study, they first ask you if you'd like to turn on 'smart features'—an easy yes.

Then, they immediately pose the second, more significant question.

Although there's a moral dilemma when utilising this behavioural nudge, it's not always a nefarious act.

You may use a similar technique to keep users motivated to complete a process or series of tasks.

In the case study, I described how the 'undo email' button didn't actually undo anything, and is really just a UX technique to give the illusion of an action.

If you were to lift 'under the hood' of your favourite products, you'd probably be surprised how often things exist purely to benefit the user experience, and have no technical merit at all.

As an example, look at the following 3-step spinner:

This is fiction, but that third step may only exist to reassure you that your account is still secure. 

Any negativity from the few seconds of additional latency are offset by the comfort of being reminded that everything is still okay.

In reality, you're watching a spinner that does nothing. But it doesn't feel like you are.

I know many financial services that utilise this technique to great effect. Once you know what to look for, faux features are everywhere.

It feels like the de facto method for educating users is this: show them how to do it once, and then assume they'll remember it for life.

When phrased like that, it sounds obscene—yet I'd guess that 99% of all onboarding happens this way.

There are many reasons why this may be an ineffective means of educating users:

While composing an email, you can swipe to accept suggested content. But instead of just telling you about this feature, they show you a 'swipe' prompt, until you've actually used it twice.

Then, the third time you go to use it, they hide the prompt.

A nuance here worth noting is that the progression is tied to usage, and not exposure.

Or rather: as you use the feature more, they take the stabilisers off.