Author : @sixtykeys Section/Question : Adding a new section Date : May 17th 2022 Link to discussion : N/A Status : Draft
Summary
User experience (UX) is an increasingly important part of the usage of many apps both in and out of crypto. UX deals more generally with a user’s overall experience with a brand, product, or service. The user interface is where the first interactions between users of a protocol and the protocol itself happen. In a space where many protocols have similar functionality or are blatant forks of one another, the UX is usually the deciding factor on which protocol to use.
Problem Specification
There is currently no section or sub-section dedicated to the actual user experience of a protocol. User experience is something many teams and frontend engineers spend a significant amount of time on. The UX of a protocol could be the deciding factor for many when it comes to choosing between protocols with more or less the same functionality (e.g Uniswap v Sushi).
Status Quo: There is no part of the DeFi or Metaverse fundamental report that includes reference to UX.
Proposed Solution
With this TIP, I am proposing the addition of a User Experience section. The best way to implement this would be to add an additional sub-section under 1. Value Proposition.
But it would be great to hear other’s opinions on this as well, as well as if User Experience deserves an entire section dedicated to itself (similar to 4. Governance).
The User Experience (UX) section could look something like this:
1. Value Proposition
f) User experience (UX) (10 points)
This score evaluates the user experience of the protocol. Does the protocol have an easy-to-use and navigatable UX? Does the protocol have a dedicated website? Does the protocol have any unique elements in its UX? Is there a dedicated app to purchase/swap the protocol’s tokens? etc.
Vote Specification
FOR: Add a dedicated User experience section/sub-section
AGAINST: Do not add any references to user experience
I like the idea as proposed (I.e. as a sub-section of value proposition), but one consideration may be that the protocol itself often is separate from the main web/app interface that accesses it. For example, you can use Uniswap (protocol) from app.Uniswap.org, or an aggregator like Zerion. The UX differs for both of these options, but neither really has anything to do with the actual functioning of the DEX.
I definitely support this proposal, but I think we need to define UX components and set a certain standard framework to make the UX section rating easier for raters and as objective as possible. I have a few questions:
Will the UX rating only applies to the relation between end-user and protocol?
Should be included in the UX rating relation between contributor and protocol (DAO)?
Would it apply to member onboarding UX?
Does UX also imply projects that want integration or partnership on rating subject? I know that there is this section, but it refers to existing integrations and partnerships, but I mean the ease of the process and cooperation in that process.
In short, would this apply to product/service only or the UX for the entire protocol ecosystem?
I apologize if the questions are not relevant. Great proposal @sixtykeys
My humble opinion:
I’m not sure if we need a UX section. In the past 20 years the Fintech mania has been wrapping the existing financial system in a digital blanket, improving the front-end and reducing its complexity.
I consider Defi as a back-end revolution, and Prime Rating maybe should prioritize this aspect also in relation to whom we want to address as a credible credit agency. Who do we expect to be our average reader? A defi user? an institutional actor? A completely beginner (doubt it)? Is he/she interested in the UX experience or he/she would like to know more on the tech and economic aspects of the protocol (for instance from a risk management POV)? (Forgive me if these questions have already been addressed and I missed them)
However, a subsection in the value proposition section might fit in. My point is that maybe it is not a priority for now, cause it does not seem to add an extra value to a report.
p.s Love the way we can publicly discuss all together on a forum!
If we talk about decentralized and autonomous protocol, then we must first define who are users. It is much more than front-end and UI, also not all protocols have the same user category. For example, Aave has lenders and borrowers, Uniswap has liquidity providers, Synthetix has minters, Bprotocol and Keeper DAO have liquidators. All participants in the protocol economy should be considered as users, i.e: contributors, community members, partnership hunters, info seekers, investors, etc.
Every interest group that interacts with the protocol receives feedback that creates an experience. Experience in the simplest model can be positive or negative and I think it affects the protocol in many ways. Do you think it is necessary to define all potential users and their interaction points with protocol/project / DAO?
What comes to my mind as a good example is how the HectorDAO project put it on a hover button. Wrapping - Buying etc links and all relevant token contracts included at an evident and reachable location, which I considered successful implementation.
In terms of user identification, I agree with you that there are different approaches to protocols since protocols are huge topics to participate in. But when we categorize such as liquidity provider - minter etc, I feel like it does not matter who is looking for what, revert interest group should receive proper feedback and experience which sums up into DApp development use-cases. I do not think it is necessary to define all potential users one by one, but every interaction point of a protocol/project is what is our focus and they can be examined based on both backend and UI levels since those define the experience of the user.
Absolutely important identification! A protocol can be utilized by different projects, which ends up in different UXs. What sparked in my mind from @sixtykeys’ message is that UX and UI still matter in their projects - protocols’ own application.
In terms of Protocols, UX may translate into DevX which looks for clear documentation of the API (if exist at all) and many other things. Unfortunately my dev skills are not qualified enough to grade a protocols developer experience.
Ok, so if the protocol doesn’t have an easy onboarding process for contributors, doesn’t want to provide critical information, has poor documentation, hides info about multi-sig, and has few dashboards on Dune (example) with poor metrics is fine for UX. But this proposal is only for dapp functionality from user’s perspective? Then it’s my mistake, I didn’t get the point of a proposal
My take is that I feel UX is weighted quite high. I would assign it a 5 point instead of 10 points.
Also I would remove this sentence. I feel it better to keep it simple between good, bad UX and not look for something special.
Also with respect to last sentence I feel this is sufficiently covered in “2 e) Is the token sufficiently liquid to enable active use and trade? (5 points)” of the FA template.
It be epic if you could extent scoring brackets and post again in the discord for people to take a second look. Also pls can you update header to TIP-002.
Amazing work! Thanks for taking initiative and pushing us forward!
Gm I will try to push this valuable proposal TIP over the finish line. I suggest the following:
Summary
User experience (UX) is an increasingly important part of the usage of many apps both in and out of crypto. UX deals more generally with a user’s overall experience with a brand, product, or service. The user interface is where the first interactions between users of a protocol and the protocol itself happen. In a space where many protocols have similar functionality or are blatant forks of one another, the UX is usually the deciding factor on which protocol to use.
Problem Specification
There is currently no section or sub-section dedicated to the actual user experience of a protocol. User experience is something many teams and frontend engineers spend a significant amount of time on. The UX of a protocol could be the deciding factor for many when it comes to choosing between protocols with more or less the same functionality (e.g Uniswap v Sushi).
Proposed Solution
With this TIP, I am proposing the addition of a User Experience section. The best way to implement this would be to add an additional sub-section under 1. Value Proposition.
But it would be great to hear other’s opinions on this as well, as well as if User Experience deserves an entire section dedicated to itself (similar to 4. Governance).
The User Experience (UX) section could look something like this:
1. Value Proposition
f) User experience (UX) (5 points)
This score evaluates the user experience of the service/product provided by the protocol. Does the protocol have an easy-to-use and navigable UX for the intended end user?
Score
Description
4-5
The UX for the service/product is intuitive to use for the intended user.
1-3
The UX for the service/product is somewhat intuitive and practical for the intended user.
0-1
The UX for the service/product is unintuitive and unpractical for the intended user.
Please delete this table after adding a score
Vote Specification
FOR: Add a dedicated User experience section/sub-section AGAINST: Do not add any references to user experience
@Massimiliano sorry for previously not responding to your comment. I agree somewhat - I agree is a backend revolution but usability is important regardless. I hope your concerns have been addressed by adding " for the intended end user and limiting the evaluation to the actual product of the protocol? " to the question. My intent is here to also capture usability of dev’s etc. I also agree with you it should not hold a high important but should be present.
So, I guess that will include UX design, availability of information, SC complexity (gas fee savings), number of supported wallets, suitable analytics for the products the protocol offers etc. Am I wrong? On what information (proofs) should we base the score? Can you give a few examples? Because I understand the word “intuitive” as something subjective.
I actually would have chosen a more subjective approach similar to question 3b) - thus why I also don’t want to give too much weight to this question. So to answer the question - I would identify the end user/users and say these properties make the User experience good/ bad, because of xyz.
I think in general some things can’t be captured by laying out strict criteria and I think this is why prime rating makes sense in the first place - because otherwise, we can replace everyone in our community with code
