3 ms·

I don't know what book you read but the title alone, "The Inmates Are Running The Asylum" is offensive since it implies I'm the inmate. But take this quote jus

by zedshaw 16y ago

I don't know what book you read but the title alone, "The Inmates Are Running The Asylum" is offensive since it implies I'm the inmate. But take this quote just from the product description at Amazon: "The Inmates are Running the Asylum argues that, despite appearances, business executives are simply not the ones in control of the high-tech industry. They have inadvertently put programmers and engineers in charge, leading to products and processes that waste money, squander customer loyalty, and erode competitive advantage. Business executives have let the inmates run the asylum!" Don't get much clearer than that, but let's talk about the damage the book caused. For a book that purports to try to improve things for humans it sure caused a ton of damage to humans. It was lacking in almost any real substance and was effectively a thinly disguised rant about coders. It was used to fire programmers, boost fake ass business guys, and created the plague of crappily implemented products that may look slick, but fail in horrible ways. In my own personal experience with the book I have had numerous executives and biz people toss it on my desk and say they read it and they agree. I've had friends fired or demoted because of this book. It also spawned whole generations of "UX consultants" who fleeced people using the phrasing and words in the book. I personally had to deal with consultant after consultant who would come in, looked at the best we could do, and then insult us. And any time a programmer tried to show who was really in charge and to blame, out came this damn book to prove us wrong. I could go on, but no matter what little snippets of text you remember, the impact of the book the way I remember it is one of negativity toward a group of people who were not to blame: programmers.

pavlov 16y ago
I had actually misinterpreted the title as implicating that the users are the inmates. That is, I assumed it means the following: when you're building software, you have to accept that the users are the ones "living" in it. Even if the users are bat-crazy, you need to build them an asylum that makes them feel like they're running the show, rather than treat them like inmates to be subdued.
rimantas 16y ago
Don't judge the book by the cover and description on Amazon. How about subtitle of the book: "Why High-Tech Products Drive Us Crazy and How to Restore the Sanity". It was lacking in almost any real substance and was effectively a thinly disguised rant about coders. Looks like you were not able to understand the essence of the book (hint: it was not about programmers). And also looks like Cooper was right in his description of a typical programmer that he calls Homo Logicus. It is sad and weird that many programmers don't like the book or, like you, see it as an attack on them. It's far from the truth. The book gives very accurate description how our (programmers') way of thinking differs from that of "ordinary" people. If you are a programmer writing software for other programmers it may be ok not to care how Joe User thinks, but if you are making product for general audience you better pay attention what Cooper says. I see a lot of his ideas in many successful products: Google Search, GMail, Apple products. Just recall all the comments after Apple introduced iPad; look at the report that iPad now is the highest-scoring product that a leading consumer satisfaction index has ever tracked; and then go read chapter 7 "Homo Logicus". After that it should be clear how such a lame and purposeless device in the eyes of geeks can be so wildly successful product among consumers. For me the takeaway from the book was not that "programmers are to blame" but "design for your user, not for you".
jaimzob 16y ago
Then it sounds like you've known some asshole executives and consultants that have completely misread this book. Cooper's point was that, sans any other guidance, programmers naturally tend to create interfaces that reflect the structure of the code (since that is what they are immersed in) rather than the structure of their user's goals. And the reason they don't have any other guidance is that people running technology companies didn't have any kind of design phase other than sending salesmen out to get pointless checklists of features. If anything, the book is a criticism of the way tech companies are (or at least used to be) run rather than a criticism of diligent programmers doing their best with incomplete information. In fact Cooper says this several times during the book. Unfortunately, it seems easier for a lot of business guys to use the book to transfer blame to programmers rather than implement what it actually says. Really bad Amazon summary too.

by zedshaw 16y ago

pavlov 16y ago

I had actually misinterpreted the title as implicating that the users are the inmates. That is, I assumed it means the following: when you're building software, you have to accept that the users are the ones "living" in it. Even if the users are bat-crazy, you need to build them an asylum that makes them feel like they're running the show, rather than treat them like inmates to be subdued.

rimantas 16y ago

Don't judge the book by the cover and description on Amazon. How about subtitle of the book: "Why High-Tech Products Drive Us Crazy and How to Restore the Sanity". It was lacking in almost any real substance and was effectively a thinly disguised rant about coders. Looks like you were not able to understand the essence of the book (hint: it was not about programmers). And also looks like Cooper was right in his description of a typical programmer that he calls Homo Logicus. It is sad and weird that many programmers don't like the book or, like you, see it as an attack on them. It's far from the truth. The book gives very accurate description how our (programmers') way of thinking differs from that of "ordinary" people. If you are a programmer writing software for other programmers it may be ok not to care how Joe User thinks, but if you are making product for general audience you better pay attention what Cooper says. I see a lot of his ideas in many successful products: Google Search, GMail, Apple products. Just recall all the comments after Apple introduced iPad; look at the report that iPad now is the highest-scoring product that a leading consumer satisfaction index has ever tracked; and then go read chapter 7 "Homo Logicus". After that it should be clear how such a lame and purposeless device in the eyes of geeks can be so wildly successful product among consumers. For me the takeaway from the book was not that "programmers are to blame" but "design for your user, not for you".

jaimzob 16y ago

Then it sounds like you've known some asshole executives and consultants that have completely misread this book. Cooper's point was that, sans any other guidance, programmers naturally tend to create interfaces that reflect the structure of the code (since that is what they are immersed in) rather than the structure of their user's goals. And the reason they don't have any other guidance is that people running technology companies didn't have any kind of design phase other than sending salesmen out to get pointless checklists of features. If anything, the book is a criticism of the way tech companies are (or at least used to be) run rather than a criticism of diligent programmers doing their best with incomplete information. In fact Cooper says this several times during the book. Unfortunately, it seems easier for a lot of business guys to use the book to transfer blame to programmers rather than implement what it actually says. Really bad Amazon summary too.