4 ms·

I’m going to be honest. I have many times said, “users are stupid, if we don’t make this obvious they won’t get it”. Now. Am I really saying that they users ar

I’m going to be honest. I have many times said, “users are stupid, if we don’t make this obvious they won’t get it”. Now. Am I really saying that they users are stupid? Of course no. Saying that a user is stupid is just an assertion to say that you really have to design as if users were highly incapable of inferring complex mechanics or interactions, because the reality is that there’s always a subset of users that legitimately won’t get it. I get what the author is saying though. Referring to a user as stupid is derogatory, but when I have personally used that phrasing I always include myself as part of that group of users. I don’t know anyone that uses it differently. It’s us collectively as software users that we are stupid. It’s not a direct insult to an specific user or cohort of users. It’s just a token to assert that your software should be “stupidly” easy to use. If someone has used this phrasing beyond it’s rhetorical meaning, then they don’t have the empathy to design software. Simple. I just believe that nobody uses this phrasing to personally insult another person, and that we shouldn’t be focusing in such small trivialities. Designing software has more complex ethical implications than trying to poke holes at your communication style. Again. Most people that use this phrasing do it to assert a point. I don’t think I have ever seen this phrasing used in anything formal. This is just a desk phrase to say that a particular thing is too complex. Seems really unnecessary to even argue around this, honestly.

lexicality 6y ago
> Am I really saying that they users are stupid? Of course no. > If someone has used this phrasing beyond it’s rhetorical meaning, then they don’t have the empathy to design software. Simple. If you assume that engineers are also (rhetorically) stupid, then if they regularly don't realise that it's a metaphor does that not mean we need to change the way we communicate to help them understand the the system of design?
- PaulStatezny 6y ago
  Exactly. It can be harmful to your culture and the perspective of people on the team even if it's implied to be a rhetorical device.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
> If someone has used this phrasing beyond it’s rhetorical meaning, then they don’t have the empathy to design software. Simple. We're several generations into the field of designing user interfaces. Like with all other saws and pieces of folk wisdom, it is the case that when you learn an adage in context of knowledge and experiences it summarizes, you understand it's just a shorthand, a helpful reference in your mind. But if you learn the adage without that context, you derive your own meaning that's not necessarily the intended one (or you just dismiss it as being trite). It's a problem as old as human societies - you have to live through relevant situations to understand as piece of received wisdom. There is no known solution, but it is still super helpful, if an adage is phrased in such a way as to minimize misunderstanding by people who hear it without experience to understand it. "Users are stupid" fails that.

lexicality 6y ago

> Am I really saying that they users are stupid? Of course no. > If someone has used this phrasing beyond it’s rhetorical meaning, then they don’t have the empathy to design software. Simple. If you assume that engineers are also (rhetorically) stupid, then if they regularly don't realise that it's a metaphor does that not mean we need to change the way we communicate to help them understand the the system of design?

PaulStatezny 6y ago
Exactly. It can be harmful to your culture and the perspective of people on the team even if it's implied to be a rhetorical device.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

> If someone has used this phrasing beyond it’s rhetorical meaning, then they don’t have the empathy to design software. Simple. We're several generations into the field of designing user interfaces. Like with all other saws and pieces of folk wisdom, it is the case that when you learn an adage in context of knowledge and experiences it summarizes, you understand it's just a shorthand, a helpful reference in your mind. But if you learn the adage without that context, you derive your own meaning that's not necessarily the intended one (or you just dismiss it as being trite). It's a problem as old as human societies - you have to live through relevant situations to understand as piece of received wisdom. There is no known solution, but it is still super helpful, if an adage is phrased in such a way as to minimize misunderstanding by people who hear it without experience to understand it. "Users are stupid" fails that.