A user on Bluesky (Mar, 2026) posted this visualization on how we might rank the experience of our products.
I’ve seen several variants of this pyramid which indicate a lack of widespread agreement. But if we’re using this as a yardstick of a successful (aka, desirable) product, it seems a little off the mark. In most of these pyramids the product is declared “functional/useful” before it is usable. I don’t see that possible for most applications.
I’d reduce the pyramid to three elements, Usable, Useful, Desirable, from bottom to top. I used this as the working title to the book I wrote and applied it not only to the product development experience but to my career progress. (I took inspiration – title only – from the book Useful, Usable, Desirable, by Aaron Schmidt and Amanda Etches, which is about library UX design. You’ll see I swapped out the attributes.)
“Usable” means someone can achieve the intended purpose of your app or website with ease and minimal (or no) frustration and distraction. There is no friction. “Reliable” from the pyramid might also fall under this category. Usable may be the most objective of the elements of that hierarchy.
“Useful” suggests someone has found added value in your product beyond its usability. Maybe it streamlines a process or enhances an activity or experience. This is subjective to the user and the context of the usage.
“Desirable” represents the top three sections of the pyramid visualization. It not only assumes usability and usefulness, it makes your product indispensable to your customers. It’s a standout among similar products. Your users will keep coming back to use it and would be more inclined to evangelize for it, thus helping its popularity. Your revenue will reflect it’s desirability.
In sum:
Usable: “I can use this”
Useful: “I want to use this”
Desirable: “I love to use this”
I’ll apply it to a physical tool: a power drill you need to purchase.The usability goal: drill several holes in your garage walls for screws needed to install shelving. The only other requirement of the tool is that it needs to be cordless (i.e., uses batteries) because you don’t have outlets in the garage for corded power. You can get your work done effectively with most any cordless power drill that accepts ¼” bits that you already own.
To be useful, it needs to meet several other conditions: it has a comfortable grip for extended use (there are a lot of holes for brackets needed), it has a belt loop to hang it while you do other tasks, and, though it’s not necessary, it also doubles as an impact driver, saving you the need for another tool. None of these is required to complete the task – you can still accomplish your usability goal without them – but they make the tool more useful than one without those features.
To be desirable, it not only meets criteria for usability and usefulness, it has other qualities. It uses the same brand batteries you use for other tools and is cheaper than similar competitors. It’s also more efficient and powerful than those competitors, saving you extra money and time than if you’d bought another brand. Based on that, you’d recommend it to your friends and colleagues, especially those who use the same brand of tools. It also might help convert others to your brand.
If you switch the useful attribute with the usable one in this scenario, it is putting the cart before the horse. Your hands can’t handle the repetitive stress of a bad grip (making the drill useless for the task) or you don’t want to keep setting down your drill while on your ladder as you might damage it. Even though you can still get those holes drilled, the task is more burdensome without those features. Usability wins in this scenario, and, at least from what I’ve surmised from other scenarios, it does as a general rule.
There’s a lot of nuance here, especially between what is usable and useful, but they are still distinct attributes. But we have a simpler hierarchy. Simplicity makes comprehension and adaptation of the principles much more possible.
I’ve got a new visual in the next post on this topic.
Leave a Reply