We have several video fitness programs with difficulties related to the intensity of the workouts. When categorizing them by difficulty "Easy" and "Hard" are clearly communicated by these terms but this leaves a large number of programs as "Medium" which doesn't account for those that can be modified to be easy-medium or can progress from medium to hard.
This difficulty categorization's primary goal is to, alongside other information, allow users to know "at a glance" if a program is right for them or not.
Does it provide a better user experience to introduce a range system (easy = 1-2, medium 2-4, hard = 4-5) or does the complication for users comparing programs outweigh the benefit?
Would "Difficulty: [ ] [X] [X] [X] [ ]" be enough to communicate that this program oscillates between the upper tier of easy and the lower tier of hard or would more context be needed?
Is it better for users to keep it to Easy, Medium, Hard where no "processing of concept" is needed with the caveat that the range of intensity in "Medium" is not very explicit?
Other factors to consider for the difficulty system are that it will be:
- Used to filter the programs.
- Applied to workouts (which are the units inside the programs).
- Used universally from mobile devices to TV platforms.
Help is appreciated, thanks beforehand :)