Tag Info

No, users are not stupid, it's usually the designers that are. A good UI requires a solid understanding of HCI (Human Computer Interaction) concepts, which range from understanding the target audience, to cognitive load theory. You might be able to get away with "idiot proof", since it's a cliché. Personally I'd avoid painting the users with a broad brush, ...

It is one of the things that irritates me, the fact that users are so often considered "dumb". They are not. In many cases, they are more intelligent that the designers, it just may be that their skills are different. It is better to say that the users are not familiar with the technical issues involved. Or that the best UX solution is to make the front end ...

There's a problem here: Saying something like, "users are stupid," makes you look ignorant. As other have said, the fault isn't always with the user; sometimes, a product is poorly designed. And, even though some users will search frantically for the "ANY" key, many other users are proficient, not dumb. I realize you mean the statement tongue-in-cheek, but ...

There is indeed such a term. Phil Farrand of The Nitpicker's Guide to Star Trek called this "being the cabbagehead." Certain information had to be revealed to the audience, but it was information which the characters would reasonably already know. So the writers picked someone in the room to be the "cabbagehead," meaning someone developed the I.Q. of a ...

Nothing to do with intelligence I would instead write something like this. You should try to make it obvious how to use your app, recognizing that it is there to serve the user. Imagine a brain surgeon trying to use Skype to consult with a colleague. This user has limited time and attention. She does not want to spend 30 seconds figuring out ...

No, it's not okay. Why not simply give your advice as something to make an app great because its visual appeal and intuitiveness make it easy to use? As someone with some recent experience in an HCI/UI design group, as well as lifelong experience as a user of technology, I think it is the developer's job to make a great UI so the user can spend less time ...

I sympathize with the sentiment, but no, you can't use "black humor" and "shop talk" in a book like that. Such comments have to be kept in-house and preferably not written down. We all complain about horrible clients and idiots at the DMV and so on, but you shouldn't actually codify that into written advice. Users as a group are too diverse to call them all ...

I don't think calling users as a general group stupid is appropriate in a development book. It would be appropriate in places where developers or customer-service reps vent to each other and try to top each other's "who's had to help the biggest idiot?" stories. It's also not really relevant to the point you're making. Users might have any number of ...

It's completely your decision, and the decision you make will help contribute to your writing style (which is why some writers are successful and some are not). So, therefore, you're asking for an opinion on writing styles and what decision we would make. Mine is that you don't resort to this approach of establishing a light-hearted way of making the point ...

Well it is clearly an insult. So, if your book is supposed to have users as a target group, then it might not be wise to insult them. Also, to conclude from someone's trouble finding an icon somewhere (or similar struggles) that this person would be stupid... well, this does not make you look so bright either (if I may say so.). You could, however, make ...

I would say that yes, it is acceptable. Obviously it's an oversimplification, and the average user of any particular Android app will be approximately as intelligent as the average human being. However, if you don't feel that you need to go into the rationale behind Don't Make Me Think simple design philosophies, then you may find "users are stupid" to be an ...

According to the tvtropes entry for The Watson, The Watson is the character whose job it is to ask the same questions the audience must be asking and let other characters explain what's going on. A sidekick sometimes acts in this role. According to wikipedia, Sidekicks can provide one or multiple functions, such as a counterpoint to the hero, an ...

TVTropes calls such a character The Watson: The Watson is the character whose job it is to ask the same questions the audience must be asking and let other characters explain what's going on. I don't know if it is desirable to have such a character (I'll let the more qualified people here answer on that one), but given the large number of examples ...

I'm a computer technitian. Every week, here at the office, we joke about a NCIS episode where the hacker and another guy fight against another hacker by using the keyboard at amazing speed and writing random commands. Evertybody from IT knows that is ridiculous. Hacking does not work in that way, neither it's possible to stop an invader just by starting a ...

I've never heard an actual term for a character created only for the purpose of educating the reader, so I'll focus on #2. It seems like it could turn into lazy way to introduce a large amount of exposition or backstory very quickly. This kind of touches that basic rule of showing, not telling. If you cover a complicated issue by having one character ...

Among developers, you can frequently find statements in casual chats saying stuff like users are stupid, if your software is idiot proof, a better idiot will be its user etc, all basically saying that users do not think the way we do, and what might be blindingly obvious to us, is not so obvious to them. "Users are stupid" is a pernicious ...

Please write in whatever style is necessary to get the information across in a memorable way. Please write in a way that makes the reader actually smarter, even if it makes you sound a little silly rather "intelligent" or "professional". ( a, b ) Some of my favorite authors occasionally call users "stupid" ( c ). My users generally are pre-occupied with ...