Humans not users
johannesippen.com
Humans not users
1–10 of 29 posts
Re: Humans not users
#2I 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 ?"
Re: Humans not users
#3I 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.
Re: Humans not users
#4Reminds me of the old joke: only two fields call their customers "users" and one of them is drug dealing.
Re: Humans not users
#5I 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 ?"
No, I think it's a reasonable statement. It's like brutalist architecture. It functions well as a building (It encloses a space, allows entry and exit, and the roof doesn't leak), but it's still a space that's inhuman. Cold. It would be a fine space for robots, but it's too sterile for humans to feel at home.
So the idea isn't inherently nonsense. (Any particular claims as to the right ways to apply it to software, on the other hand...)
Re: Humans not users
#6As 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 that just to express certain moral high ground.
Re: Humans not users
#7Not too pick on PMs or MBAs, but everything described as "bad" here is terminology from those world, not UX design. Aside from the fact that UX literally has the word user in it, this is not the language I ever hear fellow designers use except when adopting business-oriented terms in business contexts. Most of the time those I talk to simply say "people." People looking for X, people trying to do Y.
This is sematic nitpicking while simply reiterating "human centered design" talking points.
There's nothing necessarily wrong here but it feels like standard Medium fluff.
Re: Humans not users
#8Just saw another day on Twitter after a brand referring to their followers as beeflings. https://twitter.com/mulegirl/status/1088946637454471169?s=19
Re: Humans not users
#9As 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 think of the term 'passenger' in more romantic terms, whereas 'customer' seems more mundane. FWIW, the airline seems to have dropped that branding now, and have reverted to calling their, ahem, passengers as 'passengers'.
Re: Humans not users
#10As 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…
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.