3 ms·
Users. Sounds like a bunch of junkies or gigolos, doesn't it? The people who visit web sites aren't "users," click-throughs, hits, numbers on a spreadsheet, or
by anon808 14y ago
Users.
Sounds like a bunch of junkies or gigolos, doesn't it?
The people who visit web sites aren't "users," click-throughs, hits, numbers on a spreadsheet, or some other form of dehumanizing jargon. They're your husband, your mom, your friend, the guy who sits in the cube next to you. They're real PEOPLE, just like you and me.
That's why we think a successful site is one that makes real people's lives easier; One that makes them say, "This site worked for me." So we've made it our mission to ensure this kind of experience at the sites we build. At 37signals we don't see users, we see people.
http://37signals.com/01.html http://37signals.com/01.html
. . . just as relevant in this bullshit bubble as it was in the last.
- recuter 14y agoIt sounds like you are in agreement with OP.
- kristianc 14y agoIt is a little surprising to see something voted to the top that isn't a criticism of the OP, but there's not much to argue with in the email.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- woah 14y agoI love "getting real" and all the entire philosophy that 37signals brings, but how does this vitriolic comment even make sense? How are you supposed to talk about the people you are designing software for without a generic term? I guess you could say "this happens when the 'person' clicks that" "I think that this menu is more 'person' friendly than that one", but then you're just replacing one generic term with another, and really, what's the point. Claiming some sort of moral high ground based on the usage of generic vocabulary is ridiculous.