Xbox One Controller Cost Over $100 Million To Develop

mrspoonsi writes "The Xbox One controller went through many radical designs, including a built-in pico projector and a cartridge designed to release smell. Apparently, 'the core base didn't appreciate them,' so these wacky features were dropped in favor of a standard controller. According to VentureBeat, over $100 million worth of research went into the design they ended up using. 'Microsoft’s first tweaks for a new controller focused on the overall size and how it’d fit into hands, golden or otherwise. Using the Xbox 360 controller as a starting point, the engineers would make plastic-molded or 3D-printed prototypes that were each 1 millimeter wider or narrower than the last, testing a full range of up to plus or minus 8 millimeters. “That gave us the ability to test, with actual users including women and children, which width feels best,” said Morris. “We tested with more than 500 people throughout the course of the project. All ages, all abilities.” ... Morris and his team then looked at different thicknesses and shapes of the grips (or “lobes,” as he calls them), plus the angle of the triggers, different styles of analog sticks, and more.'"

Comments

Microsoft's abhorrently human factors design

[globaljustin]

Microsoft does actually do some good human factors development......spent a lot of dough to come up with the Start button in Windows 95, and defended it well, only to trash it in Windows 8. That makes me think they do good research, but have lousy management.

this is madness...

M$ is horrible at 'human factors design'. I used to be an adjunct prof. teaching Human/Computer Interaction. Consistently, when a big company tried to integrate 'U/X' or 'human factors design' (the 90s version of U/X) it becomes abstraction layer hell burdening resources w/ architecture the user turns off immediately after setup after purchase. ex: Clippy

You mention the 'Start button' and the ridiculous money they spent to make it. Great example...like the Xbox One controller from TFA, it shows ***exactly*** why M$ design is awful.

***IT WAS A BUTTON THAT OPENED A PANE OF OTHER PROGAM ICONS****

the idea that making a button would require **any R/D at all** is insane...

Now let's talk about User Testing.

I've lead research projects examining internet technology and usability in several different contexts, from filming users on an iphone, doing all-device monitoring where a resarcher follows the subject all day and diaries what tech they interact with, testing the effectiveness of Bush-mandated abstanence-only website educadtion in Indiana, to simple likert scale user surverys

As a scientist, concerned about proper use of the scientific method & accurately contextualizing non-quantifiable factors, I have to say ****most user testing done in the industry is absolutely worthless****

TFA, Clippy, the fucking 'Start button', 'Metro'....it's all was obviously developed with the dumbest, most reductive user research available.

I love the domain of 'U/X'...the border between user and machine...it's challenging b/c it requires professional-level knowledge of both techinical and wholly-non technical information. It's the *future of design*...a cybernetic perspective...

But this is horseshit...I have to say 'human computer interaction' or people think I have a Marketing degree!!!!!

In defense of individual M$ designers who did nothing more than go to work and try to make the best product, fighting M$'s organizaitonal tendencies, fighting ass-kisser colleagues...for **THEM** I can acknowledge that their research wasnt wholly worthless as the data could be re-examined & tendencies observed. Also, I can acknowledge that in some parts of M$'s crap like Clippy I can see that *someone* on the team was putting the user's needs first.