The Interplay of Utility and Usability in Sustaining User Engagement

Abstract

The phenomenon where users consistently choose and continue to engage with products or systems that offer substantial value, despite encountering difficulties in their ease of use, represents a notable deviation from traditional user experience (UX) principles. This effect, often referred to as the Utility Over Usability Effect, challenges the long-held belief that seamless usability is the primary driver of user adoption and retention. While intuitive design and ease of interaction are undoubtedly important, the continued popularity and reliance on systems like Amazon, SAP, and Salesforce, which frequently face criticism regarding their usability, suggest that a powerful underlying mechanism is at play. These examples imply that when a product delivers significant benefits or fulfills critical needs, users may be willing to tolerate a steeper learning curve or a less intuitive interface. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of this effect by exploring its theoretical foundations, examining real-world case studies, presenting empirical evidence, and considering the relevant psychological factors that contribute to this behavioral pattern. Understanding the conditions under which utility can outweigh usability is crucial for designers and developers across various domains, enabling them to make informed decisions about product development and user engagement strategies. The request to enhance the existing article by making it more comprehensive and ensuring the accuracy of references indicates a need for a more in-depth and academically rigorous exploration of this topic.

Defining Utility

Utility, in the context of human-computer interaction, is the capacity of a product or system to enable users to achieve their intended goals [Davis, 1989]. These goals can be diverse, ranging from completing specific tasks and accessing necessary information to enjoying entertainment or connecting with others. The utility of a system can be further categorized into several facets. Functional utility refers to the specific tasks and features the system offers and how effectively they meet user needs. For example, Amazon’s functional utility lies in its vast product catalog and efficient purchasing process. Social utility pertains to how the system facilitates social interaction and connection among users, which is less prominent in the initial examples but crucial in platforms like social media. Hedonic utility describes the pleasure and enjoyment users derive from interacting with the system, which might play a smaller role in enterprise software but is significant in entertainment applications. Ultimately, a system with high utility provides users with valuable outcomes that align with their objectives.

Defining Usability

Usability, on the other hand, focuses on the ease with which users can interact with a product or system [Nielsen Norman Group, 2023]. It encompasses how readily users can learn the system’s functionalities, how efficiently they can navigate through its interface, and how effectively they can accomplish their tasks. According to the Nielsen Norman Group, usability comprises five key components [Nielsen Norman Group, 2023]:

Learnability: This refers to how quickly new users can become proficient in using the system to perform basic tasks. An interface with high learnability is intuitive and requires minimal effort to understand.1
Efficiency: Once users have learned how to use the system, efficiency measures how quickly they can perform tasks with minimal effort and time.1 A well-designed system allows experienced users to work productively.
Memorability: Memorability assesses how easily users can recall how to use the system after a period of not using it.1 A usable system ensures that users can quickly regain proficiency without extensive relearning.
Error reduction: This component focuses on minimizing the number of errors users make while using the system, the severity of these errors, and how easily users can recover from them.1 A robust system helps prevent errors and provides clear pathways for correction.5
Satisfaction: Satisfaction reflects the overall pleasantness and user contentment with the design.1 A highly usable system provides a positive and enjoyable experience.

These five components collectively determine the overall usability of a system, influencing user satisfaction and the likelihood of continued use.7

The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), introduced by Fred Davis in 1989, provides a theoretical framework for understanding user adoption of information technology [Davis, 1989]. TAM posits that two key beliefs significantly influence a user’s intention to use a system: perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Perceived usefulness, aligning with the concept of utility, is defined as the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance their job performance.9 Perceived ease of use, corresponding to usability, is defined as the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free of physical and mental effort.9 Seminal research on TAM indicated that perceived usefulness was considerably more influential than perceived ease of use in determining actual system usage.9 This finding suggests that users are often willing to contend with systems that may not be the easiest to use if they perceive a significant benefit in terms of achieving their goals or enhancing their productivity.12 Furthermore, research has explored the reliability and validity of the scales used to measure these constructs, confirming their robustness across different settings.10 The relationship between perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness is also noteworthy, with studies suggesting that a system that is easier to use may be perceived as more useful because the effort required to utilize its functions is lower.9 This adds a layer of complexity to the understanding of user behavior, indicating that while utility might be the primary driver, a certain threshold of usability might be necessary for users to recognize and benefit from that utility.

Nielsen’s Usability Heuristics

Jakob Nielsen’s ten usability heuristics offer a set of general principles for user interface design aimed at maximizing usability [Nielsen Norman Group, 2024]. These heuristics, developed in the early 1990s, provide a framework for evaluating the usability of user interfaces and identifying potential issues.5 While the primary focus of these heuristics is on creating user-friendly and efficient systems, several of them implicitly acknowledge the importance of utility by ensuring that the system effectively meets user needs.6 For instance, the heuristic “Match between system and the real world” emphasizes using language and concepts familiar to the user, making the system’s functionality more accessible and relevant to their tasks.5 Similarly, “Flexibility and efficiency of use” encourages the design of systems that can cater to both novice and expert users, allowing for efficient task completion, which directly contributes to the perceived utility for experienced users.5 Even though the heuristics are centered on usability, their ultimate goal is to facilitate effective interaction and task completion, thus underscoring the intrinsic link between usability and the ability of a system to provide value to its users.

Theories of User Motivation

Theories of user motivation, such as Self-Determination Theory (SDT) proposed by Deci and Ryan, provide insights into what drives human behavior and engagement.20 SDT distinguishes between intrinsic motivation, which arises from internal satisfaction and enjoyment of an activity itself, and extrinsic motivation, which stems from external rewards or outcomes.20 In the context of the Utility Over Usability Effect, utility can be seen as a powerful extrinsic motivator. Users may be willing to tolerate a less usable system if it provides significant external benefits, such as increased productivity, access to essential information, or the ability to complete critical tasks.22 On the other hand, usability can contribute to intrinsic motivation by making the user experience more enjoyable, satisfying, and less frustrating. A system that is easy to use can foster a sense of competence and autonomy, fulfilling basic psychological needs that drive intrinsic engagement.20 The fact that users often persist with high-utility, low-usability systems suggests that the extrinsic motivation derived from the utility can be strong enough to overcome a lack of intrinsic motivation that might arise from poor usability.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

Users frequently engage in a form of mental cost-benefit analysis when deciding whether to adopt and continue using a technology.23 In this analysis, the perceived benefits of using the system (primarily the utility it offers) are weighed against the perceived costs (which include the effort and frustration associated with poor usability).23 If the benefits, in terms of achieved goals and value derived, significantly outweigh the costs of navigating a difficult interface, users are more likely to adopt and persist with the technology.23 Cost-benefit analysis is a systematic approach to evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of different alternatives, often used to determine if the advantages of a decision or project justify the expenses.23 From a utilitarian perspective, cost-benefit analysis aims to identify choices that maximize overall welfare, where benefits are often linked to the utility or satisfaction gained by individuals or society.23 The willingness of users to pay for a product or service can be seen as a measure of the utility they expect to receive, and this willingness is often balanced against the effort required to use it. The existence of the Utility Over Usability Effect suggests that in certain contexts, the perceived benefits (high utility) are so substantial that users are willing to accept higher costs in terms of usability.

Comprehensive Literature Review

Existing academic literature offers various perspectives on the interplay between utility and usability. Research has explored how these two factors influence user satisfaction, adoption, and continued use of technology across different domains. Some studies have focused on developing models that integrate both utility and usability to predict user behavior.25 Others have investigated the specific conditions under which one factor might be more critical than the other. For example, in safety-critical systems, usability might be paramount to prevent errors, even if the utility is somewhat limited. Conversely, in highly specialized professional software, users might prioritize extensive functionality (utility) over ease of use, especially if they receive adequate training and support. The evolution of HCI research shows a growing recognition of the multifaceted nature of user experience, moving beyond a sole focus on usability to consider the broader value and benefits that technology provides.

In-Depth Case Studies

Amazon

Amazon’s e-commerce platform is a prime example of the Utility Over Usability Effect in action. The website and mobile app are often criticized for their cluttered layout, overwhelming number of options, and sometimes unintuitive navigation [Norman, 2016]. Despite these usability shortcomings, Amazon remains the most visited e-commerce platform globally. In December 2023 alone, Amazon had 2.2 billion combined desktop and mobile visits.26 This massive user base persists due to the platform’s unmatched selection of products, competitive pricing, and highly efficient logistical operations.27 The ability to find almost any item, often at a lower price than elsewhere, coupled with reliable and fast shipping, provides immense utility to users. Furthermore, Amazon’s Prime membership program, with an estimated 184 million members in the U.S. as of June 2024 28, offers additional benefits like free shipping and streaming services, further enhancing the platform’s utility.30 Forrester’s projections indicate that online retail sales in the U.S. will continue to grow, reaching 29% of total sales by 2029 27, with Amazon and Walmart expected to dominate the market.27 This sustained growth and market dominance suggest that users are willing to navigate a potentially complex interface to access the significant utility that Amazon provides. The sheer breadth of offerings and the convenience of the shopping experience create a powerful draw that overrides many usability concerns for a vast majority of consumers.

Enterprise Software: SAP and Salesforce

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software like SAP and Customer Relationship Management (CRM) tools like Salesforce are notorious for their complex interfaces and steep learning curves. A 2021 survey by UserTesting reportedly found that 57% of users rated Salesforce’s usability as “below average”.31 Yet, Salesforce continues to dominate the CRM market with a significant market share.36 Similarly, SAP, while often perceived as difficult to use, remains a leading provider of ERP solutions for large enterprises.39 The continued use of these platforms can be attributed to their high utility. SAP and Salesforce offer robust and highly customizable features that integrate into critical business workflows. They provide comprehensive solutions for managing complex operations, from supply chain management and financial accounting (in the case of SAP) to sales, marketing, and customer service (for Salesforce). While the usability might be challenging, the essential nature of these functionalities for running large organizations makes their utility indispensable. The high switching costs associated with these systems, including data migration, system integration, and employee training, further reinforce their continued use despite usability issues.

Additional Case Studies

Beyond these prominent examples, the Utility Over Usability Effect can be observed in various other domains. Specialized scientific software, such as bioinformatics tools used in genetic research, often presents complex interfaces requiring significant training. However, their unique ability to analyze vast datasets and provide critical insights makes them indispensable to researchers. Legacy systems in industries like air traffic control, while often based on outdated technology and interfaces, are maintained due to their crucial role in ensuring safety and the high cost and risk associated with replacing them. Similarly, professional video editing software like Adobe Premiere Pro or DaVinci Resolve offers an extensive array of features necessary for high-quality video production, but mastering these tools requires considerable time and effort. In these cases, the specialized utility provided by the software outweighs the challenges in usability for the target users who are willing to invest the time and effort to leverage their powerful capabilities.

Detailed Analysis of Psychological and Cognitive Factors

Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance theory suggests that individuals strive for consistency among their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors.40 When inconsistencies arise, they create a state of psychological discomfort that motivates individuals to reduce this dissonance.41 In the context of using a high-utility but low-usability product, users might experience dissonance between the belief that the product is valuable and the frustration of using it. To resolve this discomfort, they may rationalize their continued use by emphasizing the product’s utility and downplaying its usability issues.41 For example, a user struggling with a complex enterprise software might focus on the critical reports it generates, thereby justifying the time and effort spent learning its intricacies. This psychological mechanism helps explain why users might persist with systems that are objectively difficult to use; they convince themselves that the benefits are worth the struggle to maintain a consistent self-perception of making a rational choice.

Habit Formation

Over time, repeated interactions with a product can lead to the formation of habits, even if the product has poor usability [Ouellette & Wood, 1998]. Once a user develops a routine around using a particular system to accomplish their tasks, this habit can become deeply ingrained. This is particularly true for systems that are used frequently and are integral to a user’s daily workflow, such as email clients or frequently used software applications. These habits can create a significant barrier to switching to a competitor, even if the alternative offers superior usability. The effort required to learn a new system and break established habits can outweigh the perceived benefits of better usability, leading users to stick with the familiar, albeit frustrating, option.

Sunk Cost Fallacy

The sunk cost fallacy describes the tendency for individuals to continue an endeavor once an investment in money, effort, or time has been made, regardless of whether continuing is the most rational course of action.42 In the context of software, users may have invested significant time in learning a complex system, or their organization might have invested heavily in its implementation and training.42 This prior investment creates a sunk cost. Even if a more usable and efficient alternative becomes available, users and organizations might be reluctant to switch because they feel they need to justify their initial investment.44 This reluctance can lead to the continued use of a system with low usability simply because of past expenditures, even if the long-term costs of inefficiency and frustration outweigh the costs of switching.

Updated and Expanded Empirical Data

Quantitative data further supports the idea that users often prioritize utility over optimal usability. Akamai’s Spring 2017 State of Online Retail Performance Report indicated that a mere 100-millisecond delay in page load time can lead to a significant decrease in conversion rates.45 Specifically, a 100-millisecond slowdown resulted in a 2.4% decrease in conversion rates on desktop, a 7.1% decrease on mobile, and a 3.8% decrease on tablets.45 This data highlights the critical importance of even minor delays in page load time on online retail performance, as they can directly translate to lost conversions across all device types.

Device Type	Decrease in Conversion Rate per 100ms Delay
Desktop	2.4%
Mobile	7.1%
Tablet	3.8%

While the original article mentioned a Nielsen Norman Group finding from 2022 that enterprise users often accept complex systems for critical functionality, the source for this claim is currently inaccessible.48 Similarly, the Capterra 2023 benchmark statistic stating that 84% of users kept using enterprise software with poor onboarding experiences due to essential features could not be directly verified from the provided snippets or readily accessible sources.39 However, other reports from Capterra highlight the importance of usability and user reviews in software selection.54 Further research would be needed to confirm these specific data points or find updated statistics supporting this trend. However, the Akamai data clearly demonstrates the sensitivity of users to performance, suggesting that a critical aspect of utility can significantly influence user behavior.

Discussion on Feature Fatigue and Complexity

While high utility is often associated with a broad range of features, the concept of feature fatigue, also known as complexity fatigue, suggests that there can be a point where an abundance of features negatively impacts usability and even the perceived utility of a product [Norman, 2016]. As software evolves, developers often add more functionalities to cater to a wider range of user needs. However, an overly complex interface with too many options can overwhelm users, making it difficult to find and use the features they actually need. This can lead to a decrease in usability, as users struggle to navigate the complexity, and potentially even a reduction in perceived utility, as the essential features become buried under a plethora of less relevant ones. Designers face the challenge of balancing the desire for comprehensive functionality with the need for a user-friendly and efficient experience. Differentiating between essential complexity, which is inherent to the task the software is designed to solve, and accidental complexity, which arises from poor design choices, is crucial. Mature design often involves layering complexity, using progressive disclosure to reveal advanced features only when needed, and focusing on providing a clear and intuitive experience for core functionalities.58

The Role of Training and Support

In systems where high utility necessitates a certain level of complexity and potentially lower initial usability, training, documentation, and user support play a critical role in mitigating the negative effects.58 Comprehensive tutorials, well-organized documentation, and responsive customer support can help users bridge the usability gap, enabling them to learn how to effectively use the system and leverage its full potential. For instance, enterprise software like SAP and Salesforce often require extensive training programs for new users to become proficient. However, while effective training and support are essential for onboarding and ongoing assistance, they are not a substitute for good design. A well-designed interface can minimize the need for extensive external help by being intuitive and guiding users through tasks effectively. Over-reliance on training to compensate for poor usability can lead to user frustration and inefficiency in the long run. The ideal approach involves striving for the best possible usability while providing adequate support to help users master the complexities inherent in high-utility systems.

Revised Design Implications and Recommendations

The analysis of the Utility Over Usability Effect yields several important implications for designers and developers. For advanced user bases or specialized professional software where comprehensive functionality is paramount, prioritizing utility and core features should be the primary focus. However, this should not come at the complete expense of usability. Investing in thorough training and onboarding programs is crucial to help users overcome the initial learning curve associated with complex systems.58 Employing strategies like progressive disclosure, which reveals advanced features gradually as users become more experienced, can help manage complexity. Designers should also continuously analyze user behavior to identify which features are most valuable and optimize the user experience around those functionalities. Furthermore, conducting user research to understand the specific reasons why users persist with a system despite its flaws can provide valuable insights for targeted improvements. It is essential to recognize that the optimal balance between utility and usability is context-dependent and varies based on the target audience and the specific goals of the system. Oversimplification in an attempt to enhance usability can sometimes alienate power users and diminish the overall utility of the system. Therefore, a nuanced approach that carefully considers the trade-offs and prioritizes value-rich functionality while striving for clarity and efficiency is key to designing successful products.

Conclusion and Future Research Directions

The Utility Over Usability Effect underscores a fundamental aspect of user behavior: when a product or system offers significant value and meets critical needs, users are often willing to tolerate a degree of difficulty in its use. This is evident in the continued success of platforms like Amazon, SAP, and Salesforce, which provide immense utility despite facing usability criticisms. Psychological factors such as cognitive dissonance, habit formation, and the sunk cost fallacy contribute to this phenomenon by influencing users’ perceptions and behaviors. Empirical data, such as the impact of page load time on conversion rates, further highlights the delicate balance between utility and user engagement. While this research provides valuable insights, it also has limitations, primarily due to its reliance on case studies and existing secondary data. Future research should explore this effect through original user studies comparing user behavior and satisfaction across systems with varying levels of utility and usability. Longitudinal studies tracking long-term user retention and satisfaction could also provide deeper understanding. Investigating the neurological or physiological responses of users interacting with such systems might reveal further insights into the cognitive processes involved. Additionally, exploring cultural or societal factors that might influence the tolerance for poor usability in certain contexts could broaden our understanding of this important phenomenon.

Verified and Properly Formatted References

Akamai. (2017). Akamai Releases Spring 2017 State of Online Retail Performance Report. Retrieved from https://www.akamai.com/resources/reports/state-of-online-retail-performance 46

Arkes, H. R., & Ayton, P. (1999). The sunk cost and Concorde effects: Are humans always irrational? Psychological Science, 10(3), 253-256.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and Technology Acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. 11

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press. 40

Nielsen Norman Group. (2023). Usability 101: Introduction to Usability. Retrieved from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-101-introduction-to-usability/ 1

Nielsen Norman Group. (2024). Ten Usability Heuristics. Retrieved from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/ 5

Norman, D. A. (2016). The Design of Everyday Things. Revised and Expanded Edition. MIT Press.

Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), 54–74.

Retail TouchPoints. (2023). Forrester Forecast: Online’s Share of U.S. Sales to Top 29% by 2029. Retrieved from https://www.retailtouchpoints.com/features/industry-insights/forrester-forecast-onlines-share-of-u-s-sales-to-top-29-by-2029 27

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the role of basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

Statista. (2023). CRM Market Share Worldwide. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/715657/worldwide-crm-market-share/ 36

Statista. (2024). Quarterly Reach of Amazon.com in the U.S. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/273963/quarterly-reach-of-amazoncom-in-the-us/ 26

Wikipedia. (n.d.-a). Cost–benefit analysis. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost–benefit_analysis 23

Wikipedia. (n.d.-b). Sunk cost. Retrieved from(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Fallacy) 42

CIRP. (2023). Amazon Prime Remains Resilient in the US. Retrieved from https://www.cirpllc.com/research-resources/amazon-prime-remains-resilient-in-the-us/ 15