[IxDA Discuss] TechCrunch defends the life of the "user"

[David Bishop]

We just discussed this topic during MAYA's bi-weekly podcast, and had  
some useful observations:

» "User" may have connotations of a drug user (worse, a drug abuser).  
So we see why there's reluctance to use the term.

» On the other hand, so many of the alternatives seem stilted,  
difficult to use, vague, odd, or otherwise not-quite-right  
(interactor, for example). So "User" is still best.

» There's a hierarchy of specificity; one should use the most- 
specific term that's appropriate:
(Bryan Minihan had this right on the 27th)
At the top of the pyramid: The most generic "Human," as in Human- 
Centered Design ("Person" is probably here, too.)
Next: "User," slightly more specific because it narrows down the  
whole list of humans to just those who are using the product/system  
in question. As in: "Let's make sure we test a prototype with some  
users before assuming the feature works."
Then the roles: Driver, Mechanic, Deli Manager, Photographer, Shrimp  
Boat Captain
Then the personas: Ed, the crotchety captain of the shrimp boat  
"Sally Mae," who's been to sea in 3 hurricanes in his lifetime, etc.,  
etc.
(I suppose real, actual users come next: "Frank, who called the  
support line yesterday at 12:30 to ask how to make a stacked bar  
chart.")

» I wonder if the human/user distinction isn't like the rope/line  
distinction: It's *rope* until it's used on a ship, then it's *line*.  
They're humans until there's a specific product they interact with,  
then they're users. (Ah, I just love semantics.)


David Bishop
MAYA Design, Inc.
412.488.2900