4 ms·
As a web developer, this claim is patently false. Reviewing aggregated user behavior data is how good UIs get built. It helps us to identify pain points, confu
by tsuujin 9y ago
As a web developer, this claim is patently false.
Reviewing aggregated user behavior data is how good UIs get built. It helps us to identify pain points, confusing or misrepresented user paths, poor hierarchy or site structure, poorly indicated calls to action, and many other valuable metrics.
Every positive user experience you've ever had online has been derived from countless hours of studying user behavior, and the larger the source the better it gets.
Also note that aggregated user data is typically anonymous, but there is a lot to be said for keeping it identifiable. Some of the best tools for debugging customer support issues start by recording your clicks so a developer can see exactly what caused an issue, rather than guessing and hoping.
- butno 9y agoThose things are much more appropriately addressed by targeted usability testing (eg in lab studies) where participants are aware of, accept, and are compensated for being monitored. Not by mass surveillance. The perspective expressed, basically that anything is acceptable as a means to optimise "user experience" (most likely so more money can be extracted) verges on unethical and immoral, if the bigger issues of group and individual privacy rights are considered. Nevertheless, as a web developer you are most likely only gathering stats from your particular web site, which is a different kettle of fish to browsers gathering and aggregating data across many sites.
- sigsergv 9y agoI'm a web developer, where can I obtain that "aggregated, non-personally identifiable information"? I'm not a publisher or advertiser, just a web developer, possible working in small company.