The problem with describing only "benefits," is that benefits are personal. The benefit I want from a tool is different from what you'll want out of it. People are looking for the features that will get them the benefits they want.https://twitter.com/noahwbragg/status/1276613019854757888 …
-
-
Tbh I really don’t know what you’re saying in this thread anymore. I mean, just read those last few tweets back and try and reconcile them with the gmail example. It just simply doesn’t make any sense

-
This is the main sentiment. https://twitter.com/pcutty/status/1276706917994450945?s=21 … https://twitter.com/PCutty/status/1276706917994450945 …
Ten tweet jest niedostępny. - Pokaż odpowiedzi
Nowa rozmowa -
-
-
To be fair, the benefits (subheadings) are both literally over the features and hierarchicaly and visually made a focus on that page. So while sentiment *might* be right (no comment here) this isn’t the example.
-
What I’m railing against is this idea of writing abstract benefit-driven copy, as opposed to specifically telling me what your app does. This “so what?” methodology is a good example. To me, it leads to fluffy, abstract copy. It’s enough to tell me “the oven preheats quickly.”pic.twitter.com/aWHppCDyvk
Koniec rozmowy
Nowa rozmowa -
Wydaje się, że ładowanie zajmuje dużo czasu.
Twitter jest przeciążony lub wystąpił chwilowy problem. Spróbuj ponownie lub sprawdź status Twittera, aby uzyskać więcej informacji.
building

