3 ms·

> talk about designers You took those three words out of context and avoided the larger point. You said in your last comment that this was about software devel

> talk about designers You took those three words out of context and avoided the larger point. You said in your last comment that this was about software development and it's not. It's about product design. This has nothing to do with the construction of software and everything to do with the designing of products that happen to be made with software. This isn't a semantic point. The whole point of what you are trying to say is that people who design software products— regardless of what you call them— think negatively of users and that makes products worse. All I did was ask for proof— repeatedly— and all you did was avoid the question. > I attempt nothing of the sort. Like I said, "maybe it's just me." > There's enough argument in the overall comment thread with some people saying "oh, when people say that, it isn't literal" and people responding "well, actually, I've encountered sometimes when it is". I think that proves that is does happen, and not just to me. This was a relatively minor point in a whole list of assertions that you made that you didn't back up. I'm done. You're clearly on the defensive and not particularly interested in feedback or pushback of any sort. You're just taking individual bits of things that I said out of context and not even addressing the larger point that I've repeatedly tried to make. Have a nice day.

Ozzie_osman 6y ago
You're right, this unfortunately doesn't seem constructive. And yes, I did feel the need to defend myself because I felt like my ideas were not only misinterpreted, but also given less merit because it was written by (what you assumed was) an "exclusively technical" person (even if you acknowledged that "sometimes" those types can provide well-reasoned input). You asked me to prove that some product designers view their users with contempt, and I said the only proof I can provide is that others in the comment threads seem to have encountered it. You're free to disagree if you haven't, others in the comment thread disagreed as well (though without alluding to whether I was technical or not, or making assumptions about whether I was familiar with certain products du jour). A simple "oh I've never encountered that". It's not like you provided proof that that sentiment _doesn't_ exist either. Anyway, peace to you brother. We're all in this tech thing together—product designers, software developers, exclusively technical people, exclusively non-technical people... we pour our hearts into our work, and I hope we can have respect for the people we build for. If you think we all already do, then maybe it's just good to remind ourselves every now and then.

Ozzie_osman 6y ago

You're right, this unfortunately doesn't seem constructive. And yes, I did feel the need to defend myself because I felt like my ideas were not only misinterpreted, but also given less merit because it was written by (what you assumed was) an "exclusively technical" person (even if you acknowledged that "sometimes" those types can provide well-reasoned input). You asked me to prove that some product designers view their users with contempt, and I said the only proof I can provide is that others in the comment threads seem to have encountered it. You're free to disagree if you haven't, others in the comment thread disagreed as well (though without alluding to whether I was technical or not, or making assumptions about whether I was familiar with certain products du jour). A simple "oh I've never encountered that". It's not like you provided proof that that sentiment _doesn't_ exist either. Anyway, peace to you brother. We're all in this tech thing together—product designers, software developers, exclusively technical people, exclusively non-technical people... we pour our hearts into our work, and I hope we can have respect for the people we build for. If you think we all already do, then maybe it's just good to remind ourselves every now and then.