> Where would you even start to be able to get value out of this data?
Much like excel for certain professions, I work on a piece of software that is used all day by people in another profession.
One thing we do is look at which features are used most (and least). We make it easier to find and use the most popular features and we make rarely used features less prominent (and in some rare cases we might remove them altogether).
In our most recent redesign, we elevated some of the most commonly used information to the point where the user doesn't even have to click anything to gain some high level insight (previous versions needed at least 1-2 clicks to get to that same info).
We have about 30 power users who we work with continuously. Some of them are nearby, and we often go look over their shoulder and pick their brains. Some of them are in other regions where we get valuable global feedback that we wouldn't otherwise get from those regions.
They get early access to new features and they get to help shape the product that they rely on for their livelihood and help us decide on what we should be working on next. It's win/win and I would recommend forming this kind of relationship with a subset of your user base if you can.
>One thing we do is look at which features are used most (and least). We make it easier to find and use the most popular features and we make rarely used features less prominent (and in some rare cases we might remove them altogether).
Well, with all due respect, this is not about making a "better" product, it is about making a product "easier to use" and possibly even "more popular" (which not necessarily are the same thing).
>We have about 30 power users who we work with continuously. Some of them are nearby, and we often go look over their shoulder and pick their brains. Some of them are in other regions where we get valuable global feedback that we wouldn't otherwise get from those regions.
They get early access to new features and they get to help shape the product that they rely on for their livelihood and help us decide on what we should be working on next. It's win/win and I would recommend forming this kind of relationship with a subset of your user base if you can.
On the other hand this can be a much more productive approach, the program will "evolve" following the lead of these "power users", until it will become "almost perfect" (and more complex, and less popular because it has so many functions ...)
In other words, both approaches have their merits (and downsides), and IMHO you have a good process in having both, but ultimately it is the "common sense" applied to the choices you make for your product that may make a difference.
Much like excel for certain professions, I work on a piece of software that is used all day by people in another profession.
One thing we do is look at which features are used most (and least). We make it easier to find and use the most popular features and we make rarely used features less prominent (and in some rare cases we might remove them altogether).
In our most recent redesign, we elevated some of the most commonly used information to the point where the user doesn't even have to click anything to gain some high level insight (previous versions needed at least 1-2 clicks to get to that same info).
We have about 30 power users who we work with continuously. Some of them are nearby, and we often go look over their shoulder and pick their brains. Some of them are in other regions where we get valuable global feedback that we wouldn't otherwise get from those regions.
They get early access to new features and they get to help shape the product that they rely on for their livelihood and help us decide on what we should be working on next. It's win/win and I would recommend forming this kind of relationship with a subset of your user base if you can.