Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Humans not users

johannesippen.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 29 posts

Re: Humans not users

#11

Post by stuntkite »

flixic wrote: post #6

As a designer, I have no problem calling myself UX designer. Sure, “users”, whatever. We never lose sight of the fact that user is a human being and we are designing for other sensitive, diverse people. User is an established term for a person in software, just like customer is a term for a person in commerce, or patient in hospitals. These are all humans and nobody is losing sight of that. No need to rebel against t…

A friend of mine once pointed out that "Only drug dealers and software companies call their customers users." I don't think he was attempting to disparage the practice and I don't sit on one side or the other with the term. I do think it's interesting though. Drugs and software and their usage are kind of similar in their human interaction. It's very personal with a short hop from the provider to consumer's brain.

Re: Humans not users

#12

Post by c22 »

zebracanevra wrote: post #10
cyberferret wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. I've always seen 'users' as simply a term for 'people who use my software'. It's a bit like when a local airline here once spent millions in branding research, and started calling their passengers 'customers'. It was really odd to be sitting at the airport and hear the call "XYZ Airline would like to advise all customers on flight 123 that their aircraft is ready for boarding through gate 6"... I always thin…

In Sydney, the public transport trains refer to all of their passengers as "customers" as well. Every single time I am referred to by that name over the PA it weirds me out. Maybe if this was a private system, but for public transport? Customer is just the wrong word.

When I was in jail they referred to me as a "client" which I thought was rather odd.

Re: Humans not users

#13

Post by marinman »

flixic wrote: post #6

As a designer, I have no problem calling myself UX designer. Sure, “users”, whatever. We never lose sight of the fact that user is a human being and we are designing for other sensitive, diverse people. User is an established term for a person in software, just like customer is a term for a person in commerce, or patient in hospitals. These are all humans and nobody is losing sight of that. No need to rebel against t…

Totally agree. Besides, if we're talking semantics, shouldn't it be "people, not humans."

Yes, these users are human beings but outside of academic settings, who ever calls someone a "human?"

Re: Humans not users

#14

Post by tabtab »

If you go around calling users "humans", people will think you are an android (lower-case), robot, or space alien; or somebody who believes they are one of those.

Re: Humans not users

#15

Post by gumby »

davidivadavid wrote: post #3
cal5k wrote: post #2

I find that a lot of articles/talks by designers make such declarative statements... "Design for PEOPLE, not USERS!". Lots of time spent on semantics. Even basic "user personas", however, attempt to capture the "not just a user" dimensions, and a decent business plan needs to answer questions like "What's in it for me? How is it better than ?"

Yes, and a lot of us marketers are scratching our heads when designers talk about "human-centric design" (i.e. making products by thinking about what people want, what marketers have been doing forever) as if it had really profound and new insights. But it's certainly a good approach so, it's worth promoting.

Marketing personas are often not aligned with UX personeas, not due to a mistake but due to the fact that the two functions operate in different domains

The customer for dog food is not the dog, for example

Re: Humans not users

#16

Post by tensor »

davidivadavid wrote: post #3
cal5k wrote: post #2

I find that a lot of articles/talks by designers make such declarative statements... "Design for PEOPLE, not USERS!". Lots of time spent on semantics. Even basic "user personas", however, attempt to capture the "not just a user" dimensions, and a decent business plan needs to answer questions like "What's in it for me? How is it better than ?"

Yes, and a lot of us marketers are scratching our heads when designers talk about "human-centric design" (i.e. making products by thinking about what people want, what marketers have been doing forever) as if it had really profound and new insights. But it's certainly a good approach so, it's worth promoting.

The goal is different though. In marketing the goal is "convince them to buy" or simply "get eyeballs." It's almost hostile to the users at times.

The goal of UX is to help them get something done and make them happy. So while the techniques may share ground, the intent is completely different (and new).

Re: Humans not users

#17

Post by arthurofbabylon »

I’m on board. I’m a designer - and I don’t think about “users.” I think about people using these instruments. The difference, in my experience, is profound: I’m connecting with a complex, amorphous process rather than a mistakenly defined unit.

It comes down to accuracy. “People using xyz” is simply more descriptive than the shorthand.

At the same time, it CAN be useful to mistakenly define an element in a system for the sake of making it usable. That’s where “user” comes in - it’s a simple enough concept to make it fit into frameworks. But please, please... be aware that it is indeed akin to shorthand.

Re: Humans not users

#18

Post by pvaldes »

marinman wrote: post #13
flixic wrote: post #6

As a designer, I have no problem calling myself UX designer. Sure, “users”, whatever. We never lose sight of the fact that user is a human being and we are designing for other sensitive, diverse people. User is an established term for a person in software, just like customer is a term for a person in commerce, or patient in hospitals. These are all humans and nobody is losing sight of that. No need to rebel against t…

Totally agree. Besides, if we're talking semantics, shouldn't it be "people, not humans." Yes, these users are human beings but outside of academic settings, who ever calls someone a "human?"

Robots

Re: Humans not users

#19

Post by cyberferret »

djkz wrote: post #8

Just saw another day on Twitter after a brand referring to their followers as beeflings. https://twitter.com/mulegirl/status/1088946637454471169?s=19

That would be just one step away from calling them "meatbags" as Bender would do in Futurama...

Re: Humans not users

#20

Post by heavenlyblue »

cyberferret wrote: post #9
flixic wrote: post #6

As a designer, I have no problem calling myself UX designer. Sure, “users”, whatever. We never lose sight of the fact that user is a human being and we are designing for other sensitive, diverse people. User is an established term for a person in software, just like customer is a term for a person in commerce, or patient in hospitals. These are all humans and nobody is losing sight of that. No need to rebel against t…

I agree. I've always seen 'users' as simply a term for 'people who use my software'. It's a bit like when a local airline here once spent millions in branding research, and started calling their passengers 'customers'. It was really odd to be sitting at the airport and hear the call "XYZ Airline would like to advise all customers on flight 123 that their aircraft is ready for boarding through gate 6"... I always thin…

Don’t they use that in the UK everywhere?
Post reply on HN