Users You Don’t Want
themacro.com
Users You Don’t Want
1–10 of 188 posts
Re: Users You Don’t Want
#2Hey folks - slightly different piece today - trying to get away from investor/fundraising posts as of late. Would love your thoughts/comments/questions. I'll check in a couple times over the course of the day.
Re: Users You Don’t Want
#3Hey folks - slightly different piece today - trying to get away from investor/fundraising posts as of late. Would love your thoughts/comments/questions. I'll check in a couple times over the course of the day.
[deleted]
Re: Users You Don’t Want
#4That's a good argument against "accessibility". You're probably not getting significant revenue from the screen-reader people.
Re: Users You Don’t Want
#5Hey folks - slightly different piece today - trying to get away from investor/fundraising posts as of late. Would love your thoughts/comments/questions. I'll check in a couple times over the course of the day.
Can you check the first sentence under the section "Saying No"?
Re: Users You Don’t Want
#6That's a good argument against "accessibility". You're probably not getting significant revenue from the screen-reader people.
Facebook for example would risk an 'accessible' website gaining a network effect and displacing them. So, it's not always a good idea to ignore small groups of users. Also, for organic growth you might end up with 1% more users at the end, but get there much faster as your compounding faster. Ie at 30% per month over 2 years (1.31 ^ 24 months) = 542.8 but at 31% per month that's (1.31 ^ 12) = 652.4
Re: Users You Don’t Want
#7The "Uber for babysitters" example is interesting, because Uber's current $50B+ business is exactly the "users they didn't want". They started out as a black car service, where rich people (and it was envisioned only as a service for rich people) could hail a limo, completely legally. And according to this video [1], the reason they moved down-market into "ridesharing for everyone" was because they were getting C&Ds and fines anyway, and so it didn't matter that they'd conceived it as a service for rich people, the only way the could survive was to make it big enough and useful enough to ordinary people that they could get the laws changed.
Re: Users You Don’t Want
#8That's a good argument against "accessibility". You're probably not getting significant revenue from the screen-reader people.
Facebook for example would risk an 'accessible' website gaining a network effect and displacing them. So, it's not always a good idea to ignore small groups of users. Also, for organic growth you might end up with 1% more users at the end, but get there much faster as your compounding faster. Ie at 30% per month over 2 years (1.31 ^ 24 months) = 542.8 but at 31% per month that's (1.31 ^ 12) = 652.4
To be clear - I'm not arguing that you should ignore any user. I'm simply saying you don't have to comply with every user request and you don't HAVE to let a user request change the focus on your startup.
Re: Users You Don’t Want
#9That's a good argument against "accessibility". You're probably not getting significant revenue from the screen-reader people.
The issue here is that you open yourself up to lawsuits under the ADA.
Re: Users You Don’t Want
#10That's a good argument against "accessibility". You're probably not getting significant revenue from the screen-reader people.
The benefits of accessibility are largely PR-related: nobody wants to be the company that makes blind peoples' lives more difficult. There may be ADA-compliance issues as well when you get big enough.
That said, accessibility is something you do when you're a big company. When you're a startup, work on making it useful to the easy customers, and then only once you have something that lots of screen-reader people want to use is it worth investing time in making it usable.