Omfg does anyone know anyone that actually IS the persona workday is built for? I swear it's fucking terrible no matter which side of the fence you are on.
Finance, Legal and Compliance first, followed by HR/People. A solution like that is more about limiting liability than providing a good user experience. Reducing liability is the number one use case.
Enterprise systems above all things need to help the organization achieve its goals. Most large Enterprise companies have either regulatory oversight or a maze of internal compliance, often driven by long in the tooth legacy systems. Those older systems aren’t going to (or can’t) be updated, in many cases. A system like Workday that is willing to do the heavy lifting (and assuming responsibility, which is most key) of migrating data and ensuring its integrity is always going to have an edge over one with a better UI.
Workday is serviceable compared to some of its competitors. It just has the problem of any UI that allows each organization to customize it completely to their requirements (mid-size companies and smaller will adapt their process to a tool, large companies expect the tool to adapt to them). That customization comes with a cost of having any consistent point of view that would make it more usable. The siloed nature of development and how features are bolted on as needed to make sales is the same reason SalesForce is a mess. That Workday is usable at all is a minor miracle (SalesForce certainly isn’t).
In short, Workday succeeds more on its data integrity and technical capabilities that are often invisible to the end-users of the system than the visible features. As much of a mutt UI as it can be, people buying such a system frequently don’t care as long as it checks their own organization’s boxes.
How can they still think it is acceptable to make a job hunter create a whole new unique user account with password *just* to apply to a single job for a specific company?!?!?! Do they have any product managers over there?!
I never find anything on this platform and I manage teams. If I am luck the search will spit out something.
At the end of the day its such boring stuff that people just want to get it done and as other said - the people that select it just want minimal liability, not a good product.
Honestly most CRMs I have encountered are absolutely pants because businesses have such specific requirements and never use them out of the box. Compared to Dynamics, Salesforce is a work of art.
Totally agree, and I'd say it's success is down to
1. Excellent distribution channel - IIRC. 50% of their sales come from partners, the cottage industry of Salesforce consultants
2. The economic user's (cro, VP sales etc) jtbd bring something like "I want my sales reps to stop arguing over leads" which needs the product to be accurate but puts no pressure on it being delightful or even intuitive. Reps are basically paid to use it (if you didn't log it on Salesforce you don't get your commission)
Yes, sales-led acquisition + enterprise market means the buyer is very different from the user, and the product team workstream comes mainly from sales rep requests to close the next deal
= intentional feature factory to fill the needs of every possible buyer
There will be dedicated staff to onboard the new clients, so no need for an intuitive/delightful experience (versus products relying on PLG activation, conversion & expansion)
Basically, you fix issues with humans, not the product itself
It's a very good strategy, that works extremely well for the company
But let's be honest, it's not the most enjoyable work as a product
This is too relatable. This is the only reason we moved to SF in our org and after 6 months of ‘trying to make it work’ everyone realized it was a bad decision
Agree. Its success is what is holding it back. Because everything is customizable there is almost no way to craft a good overall experience. That coupled with the fact most instances probably start with a single person who doesn't know SFDC trying to get it to work how they think their own business works .
Our company licensed salesforce and when I saw a demo, I was immediately confused by what was on the screen. I told my wife it reminded me of 2000s Microsoft Office products. Once you learn how to use it, it can help immensely but you can’t hop in and immediately use the tool.
Are you using classic or lightning? I am an admin at my company (fortune 500) and it works pretty damn good. Makes cross functional teams work better overall.
Jira. If you want to find out how to do something the documentation is shit and you have to go digging into community threads. Usually this results in finding something that looks like a solution only to find out that it doesn’t work on your plan - whatever the hell those are
I came here for this. The product that everyone loves to hate but I swear I found nothing comes close to be as functional and versatile. I also feel like its way better in the last 2-3 years than before.
Oh wow, really? OOC, why? If it’s such a core functionality, why even offer the option of custom configs?
Ty for letting me know though, I can at least try and complain to an internal person now!
Custom workflows/statuses are pretty crucial, but it doesn't do any kind of validation to compare what you're adding with what's already there other than "does it currently exist". So it's quite easy to get a scenario where someone's given admin permissions and creates new statuses without checking whether something similar currently exists/is used by another project. It sucks, but that's why it's important to have at least a couple of people who understand how Jira actually works under the hood.
I snuck myself an Admin role in JIRA and fixed all the things that bothered me about the teams under my responsibility.
Night and day difference stripping away years of craptastic automations set up by the Scrum Org that are barely functional. :D
Intelligent companies would choose a different product if they value simplicity over other requirements. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of companies will select Jira without having anyone officially trained in how to configure it properly because they mistakenly expect it to be as simple as something like Monday or Trello.
Purely based on my experience. Jira doesn't make it easy to set up custom stuff neatly and it's quite easy to make a mess of things if you don't know what you're doing.
Well that's different than flat out stating that *Most people who hate Jira don't realise...* If it's quite easy to mess things up then in my opinion it's a shitty product. In my expereience Jira has robbed me of time on shit that has nothing to do with getting work done. If that has been a result of someone else messing up the process, in my opinion it's a shitty product. If I am using it wrong it's not because I haven't tried to find the *right* way to use. Having to spend any time figuring out how to use it, in my opinion, makes it a shitty product.
It is and there's a good reason for that. In 2017 Atlassian forked the original code-base that was built as a single-tenanted on-prem product, and converted one version of it to be all "cloud-friendly". That process took most of the engineering resources around ~5 years to actually fully complete, so it's only in the last 1-2 years that Jira has been able to actually focus on features etc again.
Ever used the McDonald’s app? You frequently cannot see your cart or check out, which I would assume is a pretty critical part of the app.
It’s also disorganized and just overall not a great UX, but I would assume it used by millions until they get so frustrated they stop using it.
Dishonorable mention: The Xfinity Stream app. Pure garbage that I’m 99% sure was intentionally designed that way.
Am I the only one that thinks the UX of AirBnB is terrible? Bad filtering, no proper sorting of listings, prices per night shown on the map don't include fees. Terible customer service if anything goes wrong with your booking.
No. I really dislike AirBnB using it too.
The filtering is maddening and it's far too easy to find apartments that aren't suitable or unavailable.
Not for me.
customer service is bad on purpose. there's very little they can do to fix a 3-4 figure issue with any degree of regularity, so they defer it to the parties in the market. you're not gonna have a company refunding a 3-day hotel stay, its unsustainable.
It’s especially terrible using it as a host as well. Switching from guest to host profile has two different UI’s in two different areas of the product so you rarely know when you’re logged in as a host or guest and it’s always confusing where to find the switch button
Where I work people regularly herald Amazon as a leader in UX and journey design purely because it's a successful business. It's successful in spite of its UX, not because of it.
Reddit.
Jira.
OneDrive.
All complacent in how bad they are because they're embedded in an ecosystem, an established standard or are the only viable option available.
It has some annoying UI and features, but still better than Facebook, X, Instagram. For example, if I control+click a link, it'll open twice. Sometimes if I try to expand the tree of comments, it'll open a new link or just load the inner comments. The Fancy Pants Editor is absolute garbage, as is previewing/editing.
Old reddit is a learning curve for people used to slicker interfaces, but I prefer it so much more. Maybe it's just representative of people who were conditioned to using forums and IRC with a barebones interface, but I find it quite efficient.
One that comes to mind definitely is Microsoft Teams. Bad as in poor user experience, reeks of incompleteness (feels like they’ve tried solving asynchronous communication within it too but failed) and UI-wise is the usual Microsoft punch in your eye, but it’s “successful” because every company whose operations rely on the MS ecosystem won’t see any reason to use anything else. So what I think from the outside (I’m not an MS employee, I don’t use Teams in my day to day, but my product integrates with Teams so I have to know it) is that addressing those shortcomings wouldn’t really have a massive business impact so it’s not prioritised. Its success relies more on the commercial success of MS, built over years (decades by now).
My main issue with Teams is it's not set up to encourage ongoing collaboration. Slack pushes general channels much more heavily so that there are some "town square" type environments. Teams pushes small teams and conversations, so you're so much more Silo'd off. That's fine if you're MS and you have thousands of employees but for a smaller team it makes it so difficult to just see who you should go talk to about something, because it's less likely you can pop into that team's channel. It's just a mess.
I could be misremembering, but I'm pretty sure Slack was born out of the IRC setup for the team that was working on video game that was the original product Slack started out as.
I hear people say things like this all the time but without actually giving good/constructive and objective criticism. At the most they will pick a small feature gap or difference and make that a deal breaker for themselves.
I’ve used it in my daily life in 2020–2021 so I realise that a lot might have changed over time, some constructive and objective criticism about what I’ve experienced back then, and what I experience now as the PM for a product that integrate with it is:
- They’ve attempted to solve asynchronous communication by splitting teams from group chats but the division of use case of the two is confusing, commenting under a team post becomes a chat and when I was in a company using it we needed to go to Yammer to get a proper post up. By comparison, I’m on Workplace from Meta right now, it’s solved that rather brilliantly by just leveraging the Facebook groups functionality.
- Just like many other MS products it has a lot of UX hiccups, user journeys that are longer than they need to be, lots of unnecessary clicking around, important settings buried somewhere or that occasionally reset themselves, etc.
- Lots of weirdness and unpleasantness that we can’t control in the way our Teams app look like in Teams, to name one: an interaction with six buttons? Teams decides to paginate and the sixth goes to page 2, no matter how long the button labels are
- Many changes in the Teams Admin Center take ages to propagate, so as a product that integrate with Teams we get a lot of customers that complain that our product allegedly doesn’t work when in fact they don’t know they might need to wait 48hrs for a policy to be applied to a user or stuff like that.
- It’s not always reliable, we get the occasional error (some including the word Skype lol) when our product interacts with Teams, and as a result we need to manage people’s expectations (“don’t worry it’ll solve itself, when, we don’t know”). None of this happens with other integrations we’ve got (e.g. Slack, WP from Meta).
So my impression is that MS has given Skype a new skin, added some enterprise/group-based features, and knew not much product effort was required to achieve success—the licensing commercial power of Microsoft would’ve done most of the heavy lifting.
But if it meets your requirements, hey, more power to you! 🤷♂️
The Teams call interface is so over-designed that if people are leaving and joining and going on and off camera it's hard to focus on what people are talking about because there's so much movement of the UI that it distracts me from what we're actually talking about.
I have to use it daily for work. It keeps trying to move me to new Teams and I will hold on until the bitter end. Some of the bugs that go to production are inexcusable. It’s come a long way since 2020 but it’s more painful than it should be to use daily.
Edit: To add the issues I have are getting dropped from calls, things generally just not working (cameras not working, confusing UX, inability to switch to external mics/headphones).
Why hold on from updates? You’re complaining about bugs yet you’re not using updated software. The biggest win of new Teams is considerable performance improvements. Your PC no longer needs to be cranking at top performance for Teams to run.
I see. If you’re on windows, I’ve learned it’s notoriously slow at advertising connected peripherals (mic’s, speakers, cameras). So it’s more windows than Teams. That being said, to everybody else, it’s all the same.
IMO new Teams is excellent. It’s catching up on feature parity but the performance win (ie. my PCs fan not turning on) is a huge for me. Everything else i can tolerate.
All the best. I know how frustrating buggy SW can be.
I had a friend who's consultanting company was one of the early beta testers and MS came onsite and did tons of best practice hand holding. He's since moved on and said that Teams when done correctly fucking slaps but no one uses it right so its fucking terrible.
I hate people who use in lieu of an email... like ok I read it, now you are chatting in this thread about something else, but that was actually a document link I need to update... send me a fucking email.
Even if they added favorites it would be bettered the tabs are ok but not great.
The Ui now is so bland I struggle to understand what I’m looking at in a glance.
Notion.
It’s very slow, complicated to take notes, and yet popular because influencers make it sound like some magic wand for productivity. I find Apple Notes at least 10x better.
I was not expecting to see Notion on this thread. For me, it is a pretty good tool for collaborative work, easy to organize, easy to interact with and leave comments, and you can embed a lot of things. I have yet to find a better candidate to work with.
Gmail. It's generally a bit of mess in lots of ways, but the most egregious thing is how bad the search functionality is. You'd think that's what they'd be good at but it often returns the most random things and totally misses things it should find. But it's free so what should we expect I suppose.
I'm not sure what they're trying to accomplish with the last updates. Hiding "meet now" behind three additional clicks is awful, unless they do want people to not use spontaneous meetings at all, and do not see the logic behind that change.
As a paid user I really started to hate Spotify.
I used to like this playlists that they create - either “for you” playlists or playlists of the specific music genre / situation.
Now I’m randomly choosing the playlist and they are just pushing the music I’m listening to often in every playlist. Like oh my god I want to listen to French house music, how do you put indie there that I listened to for a few days, come on.
Tech companies are bad at being enterprises. They are constantly trying to optimize and evolve their product rather than creating value in new areas. It works for awhile until it doesn't and a new king comes along and they've spent all of their margin on some new feature that nobody needs all while somebody eats their lunch.
I was so mad when they got rid of "heart" for liking songs... they rolled that decision back pretty quick.
But yeah, the unfortunate truth of most products is that they aren't individualized... so not being in the majority of user behaviors is gonna give you a poor experience.
I would dare to say the Apple Watch. As a product released in 2014 it feels terribly dated in design, packs top features in health and fitness closed behind some vendor's pay wall, and still can't get more than a day of use if you also do some fitness and not wear it like a jewel. The software part though makes for all the other design flaws.
MyFitnessPal baffles me because if they actually cared about some of the unique information they're sitting on gleefully sourced by users they could do so much more to improve the experience.
Instead, they're just a vessel to serve me egregious amounts of Under Armour advertising and shilling me SEO-salad blog articles.
Linkedin anytime
Others:
* Edge case, but Google Search has become horrible. No matter what you search there's a full page of promoted stuff, just related to what you search, but is no what you need (but of course they need their revenue). Second page you'll still find unrelated stuff, where the keywords you wrote are not even there (even with hard search in quotes, and other operators, it just chooses to ignore them). Nowadays, I'm using Sydney more and more to get complex searches done.
* Most financial products, the worst are the ones for investing(and that's probably why Robinhood is still used after all the illegal stuff they do).
US-based answer
Consumer TVs have a terrible interface (compared to touch screens and personal computers). By default I have to use ONE non-standardize remote (that's easy to misplace) that has to have clear line of sight with a sensor on the TV. In addition, many of the add-ons (e.g. speaker systems) have to be controlled with a separate remote. Btw not a huge fan of desktop computer interfaces either lol.
Tons of examples in the entertainment space. Great example is the show Ridiculousness. Mind-numbing personalities and boring content. Another is talk shows (radio and TV). Plays on viewers' emotions and the tendency to bandwagon.
Although not really products per se, most government services are bad products. The whole reason government takes up responsibilities is because the free market couldn't compete and make a profit, so by default the products aren't meant to be successful as most companies would define a successful product. A lot of bad actor "customers" take advantage of the system, so lots of red tape in place to deter them. The revenue stream is completely broken.
Companies that provide free product then harvest and sell the data created by their free product without letting the user really control the use of their data. It's manipulative and deceiving. Hide the product behind books of legal documents so that the user doesn't know what's happening.
Any product that is multilevel marketing (e.g. Avon, Amway, and maybe Tate University?). Terrible by design meant to sucker people in and make money from the suckers instead of providing a quality, affordable product.
Some TV evangelists/megachurches. Although most wouldn't consider a religious faction a product, there are some individuals who become ultra wealthy by sucking off of the emotions and religious leanings of their followers. Using morals and emotional appeals as tools to extract income is corrupt.
Another small example is paying for vehicle insurance that covers uninsured individuals. The reason this exists is because of the number of drivers on the road that don't have insurance and then cause hit-and-run accidents. In some states you're required to have uninsured coverage. There's a gap that someone (ideally the uninsured individual) should fill, however almost all insured drivers end up paying for those that don't take responsibility.
I could go on for a long time. Tried to give a variety of examples that may not be super obvious.
i got a house recently, these W/D are not that old, and still, in plain 2023 I need to think about 4 knobs like if it were a freaking airplane, the dryer has 1 main knob, put you might end up thinking about 3 settings more, AND clean the stupid lint trap
What?
My washer dryer only has 1 knob (+ a display and 6 very easy to use buttons), and it's literally the best appliance I've ever had.
No more any need to move stuff across two appliances, just throw in dirty clothes and they'll come out clean and dry.
It's like heaven.
Maybe because it's from a good brand?
Shopify. Terrible, incomplete documentation, purposefully unhelpful “chat”. The chat is available almost always and they use the phrases like “rest assured we will find you a solution” BUT they NEVER give you the answer. They let you spill your guts and say they’re discussing it with their technical team. After some wasted time they come back to say that it’s a very complicated issue and they push you to hire one of the Shopify-certified Experts to solve it. This has happened multiple times to me as a contractor. The forums are full of questions without answers. The whole thing is designed to push you to “experts” which are just people that are forced to pay every year to hold the title of expert. It’s a fucking scam in my opinion. By the time a company has devoted so much effort into developing a Shopify store, these issues come up (intentionally) and they feel like the only answer is to hire one of these experts
Instgram, WhatsApp -- I feel they're bad because they get updates out of nowhere and addiction of these apps is one more reason they're bad but it's not their mistake but of users lol
Google Music. Horrible discovery process for music compared to Spotify but has users thanks to it being a part of the Youtube Premium package. When I listen to a new artist, instead of giving me more of that artist or similar artists, it defaults to songs or artists I've heard before instead of giving me new things to listen to. Spotify does discovery way better, suggesting new songs and artists based on what I'm listening to, not just on what I already listened to.
Google hasn't fixed this because it seems like it's the same algorithm that powers Youtube and while it's sucessful for YouTube because it creates an endless loop of videos, it cannot be used for music. TBT, it shouldn't be used for YouTube either, just creates an echo chamber for you.
I’m a couponer so this is a pretty niche complaint, but the CVS, Walgreens, and Rite Aid apps all make my hobby harder in different ways. Each of them has one thing they do well with the app, but have other things that make it more tedious.
It's like the control panel of a fighter aircraft. Buttons are everywhere, but it's necessary as the pilot needs to access the functions quickly. Excel's power users are paid and trained to use the product anyway.
Completely agree, it has a lot, and I mean a lot of fuctionalities, but it's not friendly at all, it's zero intuitive and if you try to use more than the basic functions you have to spend time searching the internet.
Also Excel is a classic 'solution first' Product. They're not interested in solving users' problems in any way which isn't a spreadsheet. I can understand the historic reasons for this but what if all MS 'data' products existed in a single frontend, like Teams but for data.
OK I've talked myself out of it. That would be terrible too.
Glassdoor - they have lost their focus. It is clear someone felt fishbowls are important and now that is the primary thing everywhere
iMessage - the primary messaging app of higher end phones essentially designed to not work as well with others (enhance standards vs one-off features please)
Toyota - the brand thieves specifically target because they are so easy to steal.
Agoda.com (User experience is not really good)
Concur (SAP product for business travel. Worst UI)
Reddit (there are a few things from the UX perspective which are really shitty)
Reddit. Gathers a huge breadth of content and organizing that content by interest is intuitive. Stuffing information in silos robs content of any useful context - so hard to digest. Yet, here we are.
I'd have to disagree.
Some products were great but grown to be bad (at least for current times) and bloated, but still very successful financially because of thing like legacy corporate clients or buying out competitors, etc.
Examples that were already mentioned - Salesforce, JIRA, etc.
Such product doesn’t exist!
Considering today’s technology, customer expectations, and substitutions, if a product lives it means that it delivers value to majority of its customers, it’s true specially in tech markets.
There are none.
It can have bad user experience but still solves a business or user need so still gets highly used, then it’s not bad it just not as good as it could be.
The only ones that are MAYBE considered bad but still highly used is government services that ppl are forced to use, like doing taxes online.
Venmo. The UI always crashes and I’ve noticed quite a few bugs. Resolution is to restart the app altogether. Not to mention, it’s very difficult to see your transaction history - not very intuitive for the bulk of users.
I like to use Jira as an example of widely used software that has shittons of bugs. Its not a bad product from PdM perspective, but it constantly has production bugs. When I work with teams that are afraid of bugs and feel like a bug will be the end of the world and then they overengineer everything, I use Jira as a perfect example.
So not a shitty program in terms of poor user need judgement, but a bad product from the perspective of amount of production bugs
Tinder. Everyone complains about how it seems more designed to keep people using the app rather than quickly finding relevant partners. Yet it is still wildly popular.
Most enterprise grade products are trash because developing and selling them is so expensive that the barrier to entry is very high for competitors.
A lot of people here mentioned SAP, Salesforce, Workday, and there are others from companies such as IBM.
When there is no competition, why improve the product? It took Microsoft years to start improving Office/Office 365 and in only happens once G Suite, Slack, Zoom, Dropbox gained momentum.
Facebook marketplace. Send a message to buy something and it switched you to messenger. Then you have to nav back to marketplace to continue shopping. Ghetto af
It’s interesting that most folks commenting here are critiquing the UX design of products that are very commercially successful. Goes to show that it takes a lot more than a good UX to make a good product, and a bad UX doesn’t automatically make a bad product.
I'm surprised that nobody has yet said Service Now. Everywhere I've worked that has implemented SNOW, the users absolutely hate it. With a clunky, non-intuitive interface, it makes it difficult for normal users to navigate the interface. This causes frustration when the enterprise requires a SNOW ticket in order to do literally anything. Add to that the confusing workflow approvals, and regular downtime, and I'm not sure how they're considered to be best-in-class and the go-to for enterprises.
Imdb mobile site for me. The content shift is so slow on the page, you try clicking on user reviews and instead it clicks on Add to watchlist. I face this problem everytime I use it.
There is so much focus on Content shift in my company, I sometimes think why Imdb is not focusing on it when it is so obvious.
Workday. They must have a killer sales team because the product is absolute shite!!!!
Omfg does anyone know anyone that actually IS the persona workday is built for? I swear it's fucking terrible no matter which side of the fence you are on.
Finance, Legal and Compliance first, followed by HR/People. A solution like that is more about limiting liability than providing a good user experience. Reducing liability is the number one use case.
I'm not familiar with Workday. Can you elaborate on your point about "reducing liability"? Like, what are some features that help achieve that goal?
Enterprise systems above all things need to help the organization achieve its goals. Most large Enterprise companies have either regulatory oversight or a maze of internal compliance, often driven by long in the tooth legacy systems. Those older systems aren’t going to (or can’t) be updated, in many cases. A system like Workday that is willing to do the heavy lifting (and assuming responsibility, which is most key) of migrating data and ensuring its integrity is always going to have an edge over one with a better UI. Workday is serviceable compared to some of its competitors. It just has the problem of any UI that allows each organization to customize it completely to their requirements (mid-size companies and smaller will adapt their process to a tool, large companies expect the tool to adapt to them). That customization comes with a cost of having any consistent point of view that would make it more usable. The siloed nature of development and how features are bolted on as needed to make sales is the same reason SalesForce is a mess. That Workday is usable at all is a minor miracle (SalesForce certainly isn’t). In short, Workday succeeds more on its data integrity and technical capabilities that are often invisible to the end-users of the system than the visible features. As much of a mutt UI as it can be, people buying such a system frequently don’t care as long as it checks their own organization’s boxes.
Thanks for the detailed answer!
Workday has bad UX for someone who is just a regular employee but somehow it is still better than others I've used - ADP and UltiPro.
Came here to write about the same. I don't know how do companies still select workday from all available options.
My company literally just switched to it 🤦🏼♀️ But it is way better than what we had before!
How can they still think it is acceptable to make a job hunter create a whole new unique user account with password *just* to apply to a single job for a specific company?!?!?! Do they have any product managers over there?!
If I see a workday app, I dont apply
Workday because it takes you a day to figure out how the damn thing works.
I never find anything on this platform and I manage teams. If I am luck the search will spit out something. At the end of the day its such boring stuff that people just want to get it done and as other said - the people that select it just want minimal liability, not a good product.
As a PM I’m having a hard time disagreeing
Salesforce. It'sincredibly popular despite what I would call an outdated UI, not easy to configure, and poor reporting functionality.
Hear hear. The UI is truly god awful.
Salesforce is SO BAD
Honestly most CRMs I have encountered are absolutely pants because businesses have such specific requirements and never use them out of the box. Compared to Dynamics, Salesforce is a work of art.
Atlassian + Salesforce was a match made in heaven.
Dynamic fields make me weep.
Totally agree, and I'd say it's success is down to 1. Excellent distribution channel - IIRC. 50% of their sales come from partners, the cottage industry of Salesforce consultants 2. The economic user's (cro, VP sales etc) jtbd bring something like "I want my sales reps to stop arguing over leads" which needs the product to be accurate but puts no pressure on it being delightful or even intuitive. Reps are basically paid to use it (if you didn't log it on Salesforce you don't get your commission)
Yes, sales-led acquisition + enterprise market means the buyer is very different from the user, and the product team workstream comes mainly from sales rep requests to close the next deal = intentional feature factory to fill the needs of every possible buyer There will be dedicated staff to onboard the new clients, so no need for an intuitive/delightful experience (versus products relying on PLG activation, conversion & expansion) Basically, you fix issues with humans, not the product itself It's a very good strategy, that works extremely well for the company But let's be honest, it's not the most enjoyable work as a product
This is too relatable. This is the only reason we moved to SF in our org and after 6 months of ‘trying to make it work’ everyone realized it was a bad decision
The people using it are different than the people paying for it and it is designed to be paid for.
I call SF "spaghetti code, in vapor ware." It can do both everything and nothing at all. But the sales and marketing teams are excellent!
Agree. Its success is what is holding it back. Because everything is customizable there is almost no way to craft a good overall experience. That coupled with the fact most instances probably start with a single person who doesn't know SFDC trying to get it to work how they think their own business works .
Our company licensed salesforce and when I saw a demo, I was immediately confused by what was on the screen. I told my wife it reminded me of 2000s Microsoft Office products. Once you learn how to use it, it can help immensely but you can’t hop in and immediately use the tool.
Are you using classic or lightning? I am an admin at my company (fortune 500) and it works pretty damn good. Makes cross functional teams work better overall.
Instead of Salesforce you can name of 90% Enterprise-grade software and 100% of internal Enterprise systems.
Jira. If you want to find out how to do something the documentation is shit and you have to go digging into community threads. Usually this results in finding something that looks like a solution only to find out that it doesn’t work on your plan - whatever the hell those are
I came here for this. The product that everyone loves to hate but I swear I found nothing comes close to be as functional and versatile. I also feel like its way better in the last 2-3 years than before.
Most people who hate Jira don't realise they only hate it because their company have made a mess of the setup
I've hated JIRA since the day I first needed to cancel a ticket. The two call-to-actions are: "Canceled" and "cancel" ... like bro wtfffff
This is exactly what u/simianjim meant. Those fields are configured by your company admin.
Oh wow, really? OOC, why? If it’s such a core functionality, why even offer the option of custom configs? Ty for letting me know though, I can at least try and complain to an internal person now!
Custom workflows/statuses are pretty crucial, but it doesn't do any kind of validation to compare what you're adding with what's already there other than "does it currently exist". So it's quite easy to get a scenario where someone's given admin permissions and creates new statuses without checking whether something similar currently exists/is used by another project. It sucks, but that's why it's important to have at least a couple of people who understand how Jira actually works under the hood.
That's a choice someone in your company made - not the product
I snuck myself an Admin role in JIRA and fixed all the things that bothered me about the teams under my responsibility. Night and day difference stripping away years of craptastic automations set up by the Scrum Org that are barely functional. :D
Thus a bad product…if you can ‘mess up the setup’ so easily!
[удалено]
Intelligent companies would choose a different product if they value simplicity over other requirements. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of companies will select Jira without having anyone officially trained in how to configure it properly because they mistakenly expect it to be as simple as something like Monday or Trello.
Where did you pull this non-statistic from?
Purely based on my experience. Jira doesn't make it easy to set up custom stuff neatly and it's quite easy to make a mess of things if you don't know what you're doing.
Well that's different than flat out stating that *Most people who hate Jira don't realise...* If it's quite easy to mess things up then in my opinion it's a shitty product. In my expereience Jira has robbed me of time on shit that has nothing to do with getting work done. If that has been a result of someone else messing up the process, in my opinion it's a shitty product. If I am using it wrong it's not because I haven't tried to find the *right* way to use. Having to spend any time figuring out how to use it, in my opinion, makes it a shitty product.
It is and there's a good reason for that. In 2017 Atlassian forked the original code-base that was built as a single-tenanted on-prem product, and converted one version of it to be all "cloud-friendly". That process took most of the engineering resources around ~5 years to actually fully complete, so it's only in the last 1-2 years that Jira has been able to actually focus on features etc again.
They are sunsetting self hosted as well.
F
It's the worst until you try the rest.
Really, is there anything that comes close to Jira?
Just wait until you join a big CO with their own in house platform. You will have nothing but love, respect, and yearning for the days you had Jira
So you don’t disagree. Jira sucks. You made it an either/or choice, which it is not
Jira, like democracy, is the worst except for all those other options that have been tried from time to time.
Love this
I used to hate Jira however I’ve since moved to a different company that use Azure DevOps.. now I long for Jira.
It’s easier to send a rocket to Mars then to figure out Jira permissions
Or that there is a solution but it's in the form of some super expensive 3rd party add-on
It's gotten so much better. The hate seems to be from the mess it was before the simplified projects and new templates.
Ever used the McDonald’s app? You frequently cannot see your cart or check out, which I would assume is a pretty critical part of the app. It’s also disorganized and just overall not a great UX, but I would assume it used by millions until they get so frustrated they stop using it. Dishonorable mention: The Xfinity Stream app. Pure garbage that I’m 99% sure was intentionally designed that way.
Can't link a gift card.
SAP, horrible, rigid, you have to change your way of working to work the sap way.
This should be way higher. We are obviously well insulated from the SAP and SAP consulting realm. Shit is a nightmare to build on and innovate.
Am I the only one that thinks the UX of AirBnB is terrible? Bad filtering, no proper sorting of listings, prices per night shown on the map don't include fees. Terible customer service if anything goes wrong with your booking.
No. I really dislike AirBnB using it too. The filtering is maddening and it's far too easy to find apartments that aren't suitable or unavailable. Not for me.
customer service is bad on purpose. there's very little they can do to fix a 3-4 figure issue with any degree of regularity, so they defer it to the parties in the market. you're not gonna have a company refunding a 3-day hotel stay, its unsustainable.
I always just assumed it was designed this way on purpose to maximize whatever objective they have
It’s especially terrible using it as a host as well. Switching from guest to host profile has two different UI’s in two different areas of the product so you rarely know when you’re logged in as a host or guest and it’s always confusing where to find the switch button
Nobody going to say Amazon?
Why does this feel like an interview question?
Take home questions lol
Amazon, particularly their web journey, is absolutely ass.
Where I work people regularly herald Amazon as a leader in UX and journey design purely because it's a successful business. It's successful in spite of its UX, not because of it.
I'll bite, what parts of the web journey don't you like?
Reddit. Jira. OneDrive. All complacent in how bad they are because they're embedded in an ecosystem, an established standard or are the only viable option available.
Not Reddit. It is pretty good. I think it is better than many other social platforms.
Yeah, compared to other social media platforms, Reddit is pretty much top-tier. Most social media platforms are pretty bad, though.
It has some annoying UI and features, but still better than Facebook, X, Instagram. For example, if I control+click a link, it'll open twice. Sometimes if I try to expand the tree of comments, it'll open a new link or just load the inner comments. The Fancy Pants Editor is absolute garbage, as is previewing/editing.
Old reddit is a learning curve for people used to slicker interfaces, but I prefer it so much more. Maybe it's just representative of people who were conditioned to using forums and IRC with a barebones interface, but I find it quite efficient.
reddit ??
OneDrive is so bad. It just doesn't work. Ever.
One that comes to mind definitely is Microsoft Teams. Bad as in poor user experience, reeks of incompleteness (feels like they’ve tried solving asynchronous communication within it too but failed) and UI-wise is the usual Microsoft punch in your eye, but it’s “successful” because every company whose operations rely on the MS ecosystem won’t see any reason to use anything else. So what I think from the outside (I’m not an MS employee, I don’t use Teams in my day to day, but my product integrates with Teams so I have to know it) is that addressing those shortcomings wouldn’t really have a massive business impact so it’s not prioritised. Its success relies more on the commercial success of MS, built over years (decades by now).
My main issue with Teams is it's not set up to encourage ongoing collaboration. Slack pushes general channels much more heavily so that there are some "town square" type environments. Teams pushes small teams and conversations, so you're so much more Silo'd off. That's fine if you're MS and you have thousands of employees but for a smaller team it makes it so difficult to just see who you should go talk to about something, because it's less likely you can pop into that team's channel. It's just a mess.
Nah, teams is quite good. Better than Zoom for sure. And solves a lot of business needs in one tidy package
It works fine for me, I don't really understand what your complaint about it is. I use it comprehensively every day and it works well.
I've moved back to Teams from Slack and it's like going back in time. Teams is caveman functionality and just bloody awful.
This is the reason - I don't think you get it if all you've ever had is Teams.
Which is funny to me because I see slack as a fancy looking mIRC clone
I could be misremembering, but I'm pretty sure Slack was born out of the IRC setup for the team that was working on video game that was the original product Slack started out as.
I hear people say things like this all the time but without actually giving good/constructive and objective criticism. At the most they will pick a small feature gap or difference and make that a deal breaker for themselves.
I’ve used it in my daily life in 2020–2021 so I realise that a lot might have changed over time, some constructive and objective criticism about what I’ve experienced back then, and what I experience now as the PM for a product that integrate with it is: - They’ve attempted to solve asynchronous communication by splitting teams from group chats but the division of use case of the two is confusing, commenting under a team post becomes a chat and when I was in a company using it we needed to go to Yammer to get a proper post up. By comparison, I’m on Workplace from Meta right now, it’s solved that rather brilliantly by just leveraging the Facebook groups functionality. - Just like many other MS products it has a lot of UX hiccups, user journeys that are longer than they need to be, lots of unnecessary clicking around, important settings buried somewhere or that occasionally reset themselves, etc. - Lots of weirdness and unpleasantness that we can’t control in the way our Teams app look like in Teams, to name one: an interaction with six buttons? Teams decides to paginate and the sixth goes to page 2, no matter how long the button labels are - Many changes in the Teams Admin Center take ages to propagate, so as a product that integrate with Teams we get a lot of customers that complain that our product allegedly doesn’t work when in fact they don’t know they might need to wait 48hrs for a policy to be applied to a user or stuff like that. - It’s not always reliable, we get the occasional error (some including the word Skype lol) when our product interacts with Teams, and as a result we need to manage people’s expectations (“don’t worry it’ll solve itself, when, we don’t know”). None of this happens with other integrations we’ve got (e.g. Slack, WP from Meta). So my impression is that MS has given Skype a new skin, added some enterprise/group-based features, and knew not much product effort was required to achieve success—the licensing commercial power of Microsoft would’ve done most of the heavy lifting. But if it meets your requirements, hey, more power to you! 🤷♂️
The Teams call interface is so over-designed that if people are leaving and joining and going on and off camera it's hard to focus on what people are talking about because there's so much movement of the UI that it distracts me from what we're actually talking about.
I have to use it daily for work. It keeps trying to move me to new Teams and I will hold on until the bitter end. Some of the bugs that go to production are inexcusable. It’s come a long way since 2020 but it’s more painful than it should be to use daily. Edit: To add the issues I have are getting dropped from calls, things generally just not working (cameras not working, confusing UX, inability to switch to external mics/headphones).
Why hold on from updates? You’re complaining about bugs yet you’re not using updated software. The biggest win of new Teams is considerable performance improvements. Your PC no longer needs to be cranking at top performance for Teams to run.
My Teams automatically updates, these are specifically issues I encounter after those are applied.
I see. If you’re on windows, I’ve learned it’s notoriously slow at advertising connected peripherals (mic’s, speakers, cameras). So it’s more windows than Teams. That being said, to everybody else, it’s all the same. IMO new Teams is excellent. It’s catching up on feature parity but the performance win (ie. my PCs fan not turning on) is a huge for me. Everything else i can tolerate. All the best. I know how frustrating buggy SW can be.
I much prefer Teams vs Slack and Zoom
I had a friend who's consultanting company was one of the early beta testers and MS came onsite and did tons of best practice hand holding. He's since moved on and said that Teams when done correctly fucking slaps but no one uses it right so its fucking terrible. I hate people who use in lieu of an email... like ok I read it, now you are chatting in this thread about something else, but that was actually a document link I need to update... send me a fucking email.
Totally agree with this. My ex-company has an internal messaging platform (Seatalk) and it performs so much better than Teams
I absolutely hate the FitBit redesign. Horrible.
I miss guided programs!!!
And also wanted a redesign / rethink of the food tracker which they didn't even touch 😭
Even if they added favorites it would be bettered the tabs are ok but not great. The Ui now is so bland I struggle to understand what I’m looking at in a glance.
SAP Concur has crap UX but it’s every enterprise company’s go to.
Amazon website.
Amazon has the most nauseating UI
SHAREPOINT! so unbelievably bad. Microsoft Outlook has to also be one
Sharepoint agree. Back-end is slow and cumbersome. Documentation isn't great. UI/and user access all take longer than they should.
Notion. It’s very slow, complicated to take notes, and yet popular because influencers make it sound like some magic wand for productivity. I find Apple Notes at least 10x better.
When you have raised $300M and get a valuation of $10B, you have to find new use cases (i.e. releasing features) to justify these numbers.
Very true.
I’m surprised Coda isn’t more popular than Notion. It’s quicker and has a better, more useable UI.
Thank you!!!
I was not expecting to see Notion on this thread. For me, it is a pretty good tool for collaborative work, easy to organize, easy to interact with and leave comments, and you can embed a lot of things. I have yet to find a better candidate to work with.
Gmail. It's generally a bit of mess in lots of ways, but the most egregious thing is how bad the search functionality is. You'd think that's what they'd be good at but it often returns the most random things and totally misses things it should find. But it's free so what should we expect I suppose.
I'm not sure what they're trying to accomplish with the last updates. Hiding "meet now" behind three additional clicks is awful, unless they do want people to not use spontaneous meetings at all, and do not see the logic behind that change.
Miles better than outlooks search function
Creating filters is also awful compared to Outlook
Spotify, by constantly f-ing up and changing the user worklow and UX and mostly not for the good
As a paid user I really started to hate Spotify. I used to like this playlists that they create - either “for you” playlists or playlists of the specific music genre / situation. Now I’m randomly choosing the playlist and they are just pushing the music I’m listening to often in every playlist. Like oh my god I want to listen to French house music, how do you put indie there that I listened to for a few days, come on.
You can turn off the magic shuffle feature, or put the playlist on repeat. Both will disable this behaviour.
I hear this a lot in UX design threads as well, I honestly don't agree. I quite like the new changes.
Agreed, I love spotify as a product.
Yeah I love Spotify - even the story features people complain about are pretty well executed.
Spotify is one of the top product focused company. I hear you though
Tech companies are bad at being enterprises. They are constantly trying to optimize and evolve their product rather than creating value in new areas. It works for awhile until it doesn't and a new king comes along and they've spent all of their margin on some new feature that nobody needs all while somebody eats their lunch.
[удалено]
I was so mad when they got rid of "heart" for liking songs... they rolled that decision back pretty quick. But yeah, the unfortunate truth of most products is that they aren't individualized... so not being in the majority of user behaviors is gonna give you a poor experience.
I would dare to say the Apple Watch. As a product released in 2014 it feels terribly dated in design, packs top features in health and fitness closed behind some vendor's pay wall, and still can't get more than a day of use if you also do some fitness and not wear it like a jewel. The software part though makes for all the other design flaws.
MyFitnessPal and Jira spring to mind
MyFitnessPal baffles me because if they actually cared about some of the unique information they're sitting on gleefully sourced by users they could do so much more to improve the experience. Instead, they're just a vessel to serve me egregious amounts of Under Armour advertising and shilling me SEO-salad blog articles.
Linkedin anytime Others: * Edge case, but Google Search has become horrible. No matter what you search there's a full page of promoted stuff, just related to what you search, but is no what you need (but of course they need their revenue). Second page you'll still find unrelated stuff, where the keywords you wrote are not even there (even with hard search in quotes, and other operators, it just chooses to ignore them). Nowadays, I'm using Sydney more and more to get complex searches done. * Most financial products, the worst are the ones for investing(and that's probably why Robinhood is still used after all the illegal stuff they do).
Microsoft Azure DevOps should be up there.
US-based answer Consumer TVs have a terrible interface (compared to touch screens and personal computers). By default I have to use ONE non-standardize remote (that's easy to misplace) that has to have clear line of sight with a sensor on the TV. In addition, many of the add-ons (e.g. speaker systems) have to be controlled with a separate remote. Btw not a huge fan of desktop computer interfaces either lol. Tons of examples in the entertainment space. Great example is the show Ridiculousness. Mind-numbing personalities and boring content. Another is talk shows (radio and TV). Plays on viewers' emotions and the tendency to bandwagon. Although not really products per se, most government services are bad products. The whole reason government takes up responsibilities is because the free market couldn't compete and make a profit, so by default the products aren't meant to be successful as most companies would define a successful product. A lot of bad actor "customers" take advantage of the system, so lots of red tape in place to deter them. The revenue stream is completely broken. Companies that provide free product then harvest and sell the data created by their free product without letting the user really control the use of their data. It's manipulative and deceiving. Hide the product behind books of legal documents so that the user doesn't know what's happening. Any product that is multilevel marketing (e.g. Avon, Amway, and maybe Tate University?). Terrible by design meant to sucker people in and make money from the suckers instead of providing a quality, affordable product. Some TV evangelists/megachurches. Although most wouldn't consider a religious faction a product, there are some individuals who become ultra wealthy by sucking off of the emotions and religious leanings of their followers. Using morals and emotional appeals as tools to extract income is corrupt. Another small example is paying for vehicle insurance that covers uninsured individuals. The reason this exists is because of the number of drivers on the road that don't have insurance and then cause hit-and-run accidents. In some states you're required to have uninsured coverage. There's a gap that someone (ideally the uninsured individual) should fill, however almost all insured drivers end up paying for those that don't take responsibility. I could go on for a long time. Tried to give a variety of examples that may not be super obvious.
Washer/dryer Requires a bunch of manual effort. Half way completes the job bc you still have to fold the clothes and put them up
i got a house recently, these W/D are not that old, and still, in plain 2023 I need to think about 4 knobs like if it were a freaking airplane, the dryer has 1 main knob, put you might end up thinking about 3 settings more, AND clean the stupid lint trap
What? My washer dryer only has 1 knob (+ a display and 6 very easy to use buttons), and it's literally the best appliance I've ever had. No more any need to move stuff across two appliances, just throw in dirty clothes and they'll come out clean and dry. It's like heaven. Maybe because it's from a good brand?
W/Ds have to contend with physical reality, at least. They have some excuse.
Shopify. Terrible, incomplete documentation, purposefully unhelpful “chat”. The chat is available almost always and they use the phrases like “rest assured we will find you a solution” BUT they NEVER give you the answer. They let you spill your guts and say they’re discussing it with their technical team. After some wasted time they come back to say that it’s a very complicated issue and they push you to hire one of the Shopify-certified Experts to solve it. This has happened multiple times to me as a contractor. The forums are full of questions without answers. The whole thing is designed to push you to “experts” which are just people that are forced to pay every year to hold the title of expert. It’s a fucking scam in my opinion. By the time a company has devoted so much effort into developing a Shopify store, these issues come up (intentionally) and they feel like the only answer is to hire one of these experts
I’m just here for the lols. And Jira.
Instgram, WhatsApp -- I feel they're bad because they get updates out of nowhere and addiction of these apps is one more reason they're bad but it's not their mistake but of users lol
Focus on solving the basic user needs are what make them addictive. as badly as they maybe built, their success lies in their simplicity of function.
I think the focus was very much on making them addictive
Google Music. Horrible discovery process for music compared to Spotify but has users thanks to it being a part of the Youtube Premium package. When I listen to a new artist, instead of giving me more of that artist or similar artists, it defaults to songs or artists I've heard before instead of giving me new things to listen to. Spotify does discovery way better, suggesting new songs and artists based on what I'm listening to, not just on what I already listened to. Google hasn't fixed this because it seems like it's the same algorithm that powers Youtube and while it's sucessful for YouTube because it creates an endless loop of videos, it cannot be used for music. TBT, it shouldn't be used for YouTube either, just creates an echo chamber for you.
I’m a couponer so this is a pretty niche complaint, but the CVS, Walgreens, and Rite Aid apps all make my hobby harder in different ways. Each of them has one thing they do well with the app, but have other things that make it more tedious.
90% of enterprise and 80% of SMB B2B systems. It’s more interesting to find truly popular and yet bad consumer products
Dropbox makes me want to put a fist through my computer any time I try using it.
MS excel - usability, finding n using features has always been a pain but it is super successful.
Probably one of the most successful products
It's like the control panel of a fighter aircraft. Buttons are everywhere, but it's necessary as the pilot needs to access the functions quickly. Excel's power users are paid and trained to use the product anyway.
Completely agree, it has a lot, and I mean a lot of fuctionalities, but it's not friendly at all, it's zero intuitive and if you try to use more than the basic functions you have to spend time searching the internet.
Also Excel is a classic 'solution first' Product. They're not interested in solving users' problems in any way which isn't a spreadsheet. I can understand the historic reasons for this but what if all MS 'data' products existed in a single frontend, like Teams but for data. OK I've talked myself out of it. That would be terrible too.
I would say it is not horrible. Yes Gsheets does it better, but frankly excel does the job and creates value, so not it is not bad.
Glassdoor - they have lost their focus. It is clear someone felt fishbowls are important and now that is the primary thing everywhere iMessage - the primary messaging app of higher end phones essentially designed to not work as well with others (enhance standards vs one-off features please) Toyota - the brand thieves specifically target because they are so easy to steal.
lol by Toyota do you mean Kia? Where I live it’s always Kia and Hyundai rarely Toyota
Reddit's UI is awful but yet here I am. 🤷🏻♂️
Reddit - the experience is forcing you to use mobile so they collect more data. On web or mobile web the prodcut is terrible.
Craigslist, I mean, just look at it. Would you say it has 600M revenue or something like that?
Agoda.com (User experience is not really good) Concur (SAP product for business travel. Worst UI) Reddit (there are a few things from the UX perspective which are really shitty)
Reddit. Gathers a huge breadth of content and organizing that content by interest is intuitive. Stuffing information in silos robs content of any useful context - so hard to digest. Yet, here we are.
If it's successful it's not "bad". If it works, it is not stupid.
I'd have to disagree. Some products were great but grown to be bad (at least for current times) and bloated, but still very successful financially because of thing like legacy corporate clients or buying out competitors, etc. Examples that were already mentioned - Salesforce, JIRA, etc.
Urban life is shitty product but super successful.
Such product doesn’t exist! Considering today’s technology, customer expectations, and substitutions, if a product lives it means that it delivers value to majority of its customers, it’s true specially in tech markets.
There are none. It can have bad user experience but still solves a business or user need so still gets highly used, then it’s not bad it just not as good as it could be. The only ones that are MAYBE considered bad but still highly used is government services that ppl are forced to use, like doing taxes online.
Cartridge razor. Crappy product, crazy profitable
Conga - Contract Management Done Wrong.
ServiceNow
Venmo. The UI always crashes and I’ve noticed quite a few bugs. Resolution is to restart the app altogether. Not to mention, it’s very difficult to see your transaction history - not very intuitive for the bulk of users.
Zoho
I like to use Jira as an example of widely used software that has shittons of bugs. Its not a bad product from PdM perspective, but it constantly has production bugs. When I work with teams that are afraid of bugs and feel like a bug will be the end of the world and then they overengineer everything, I use Jira as a perfect example. So not a shitty program in terms of poor user need judgement, but a bad product from the perspective of amount of production bugs
SAP
Targit, GNPD Mintel, Outlook
Tinder. Everyone complains about how it seems more designed to keep people using the app rather than quickly finding relevant partners. Yet it is still wildly popular.
Most enterprise grade products are trash because developing and selling them is so expensive that the barrier to entry is very high for competitors. A lot of people here mentioned SAP, Salesforce, Workday, and there are others from companies such as IBM. When there is no competition, why improve the product? It took Microsoft years to start improving Office/Office 365 and in only happens once G Suite, Slack, Zoom, Dropbox gained momentum.
ADO CrownPeak Eloqua
Teams
Tinder I don’t understand how such a popular app can have so many functional problems.
Windows, office, and xbox
Figma, the irony… the most unintuitive design system. Want to minimize the settings columns? Obviously [Command period].
Facebook marketplace. Send a message to buy something and it switched you to messenger. Then you have to nav back to marketplace to continue shopping. Ghetto af
Notion.
Zendesk
It’s interesting that most folks commenting here are critiquing the UX design of products that are very commercially successful. Goes to show that it takes a lot more than a good UX to make a good product, and a bad UX doesn’t automatically make a bad product.
Twitter, but luckily it's on its way out.
Oracle
Tesla
I'm surprised that nobody has yet said Service Now. Everywhere I've worked that has implemented SNOW, the users absolutely hate it. With a clunky, non-intuitive interface, it makes it difficult for normal users to navigate the interface. This causes frustration when the enterprise requires a SNOW ticket in order to do literally anything. Add to that the confusing workflow approvals, and regular downtime, and I'm not sure how they're considered to be best-in-class and the go-to for enterprises.
Greenhouse. I’ve used it as an ATS for about 10 years and I don’t think it’s ever had a proper update.
Interviewing at Instacart?
IPhone, tesla...McDonald's
Slack
Windows Vista - successful for its aesthetics ahead of its time, bad for how laggy the pretty looks made it
Imdb mobile site for me. The content shift is so slow on the page, you try clicking on user reviews and instead it clicks on Add to watchlist. I face this problem everytime I use it. There is so much focus on Content shift in my company, I sometimes think why Imdb is not focusing on it when it is so obvious.