{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03355704697986577, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00587248322147651, 'mean_word_length': 5.379679144385027, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Do companies fail because their technology is unusable?

In a recent posting on the CHI Consultants discussion list, Kay Aubrey quoted a company CEO as saying: “No company has ever failed because their technology doesn’t work; they failed because they had no sales.” Aubrey reports that when she heard this a light went off in her head. “I have met with so many prospects,” she wrote, “who were worried and embarrassed about their horrendously arcane and hopelessly unusable products, but their companies were successful in spite of this problem.” Just how important is usability? Understandability? Appearance? It depends upon the competitive landscape. Consider the business prospects of two products that are universally acclaimed for their attention to detail, the functions offered, and the high quality of their user interaction: Apple’s iTunes service and TiVo’s Personal Video Recorder. Start with iTunes, contrasting it with Napster. Two very respected commentators on technology—vehement proponents of usability—give Napster a real chance even though both state that its usability sucks: Walter Mossberg, writing in the Wall Street Journal (Thursday, March 17, 2005, Page B1), said: