7 ms·

That's at least a principled stance, which I can appreciate. I still disagree, though. It seems like the only logical way to get out of your thought process wo

That's at least a principled stance, which I can appreciate. I still disagree, though. It seems like the only logical way to get out of your thought process would be to create software and then never update or change anything. Either that or have every user sign a waiver saying that the product could change in the future and that might impact them psychologically. After all, why is it different when you're making a change without A/B testing it? Surely every change has some hypothesis attached to it. Does it only matter to you when developers observe the metrics changing?

scotu 6y ago
you could make a study with willing partecipants
bathtub365 6y ago
> I still disagree, though. It seems like the only logical way to get out of your thought process would be to create software and then never update or change anything. Either that or have every user sign a waiver saying that the product could change in the future and that might impact them psychologically. This is a false choice. There are multiple ways you can ethically approach improving software, such as: - user interviews - A/B testing with informed consent - user testing (directly observing the user while they use the software) - focus groups - feedback forms - crash/error logging There are probably more, but the theme among all of them is user consent. The ethical implications of using engagement metrics to drive software development is well-worn territory at this point, especially with respect to social media, and I don’t understand why the software industry seems to get a pass when others don’t.