SocialText's Scott Schnaars scratches a pet peeve of mine, and explains the implications well:
"Question One: When implementing a new system, any new system, for your community, how do you refer to the end users? What if you are implementing social media for your company? Who is going to use the system? Users? Employees?
What about people (maybe the title of the post gave that one away)?"
Yup. This was smart, too - and very applicable in the IT world:
"Listen, you don’t go to the doctor because you are sick. Sickness is the by-product of something deeper, something more concise. You go to the doctor because you have a headache or a stomach ache or numbness in your left arm. If you just show up at your doctor and say your sick, but can’t describe any symptoms, you’ll be given a sugar tab and sent on your way. If you have a more specific problem, you can diagnose it with a very specific solution. Your enterprise social media strategy needs a similar level of specificity in order for it to succeed."
Change "social media" to any other form of IT project, and it still makes a true point. First of all, the only other industry that talks about "users" sells drugs like heroin and cocaine. The second point is that talking or reading about "users" lights up like a neon sign to me, and says "I haven't really thought about them in any depth beyond an abstraction." Why these people then expect to create something that succeeds wildly and helps their "users," rather than something that is in their "users" way as often as not, is one of the great mysteries of technology and human nature.
"Users" makes sense, given the fact that those systems are developed by "Resources" ( link )
[NM says: Please don't post bare URLs; it messes up Movable Type's tiny little formatting brain. Suggested format for links is presented immediately above the comment entry fields. Thanks. Fixed for you, this time.]
Sorry...
Sorry...
"When implementing a new system, any new system, for your community, how do you refer to the end users?"
Victims, if experience is any judge ;)
Because the word "people" doesn't distinguish between those who use the system and those who don't. Upgrading your jargon to be more inclusive won't fix problems nor change basic attitudes among the implementors (oh no, I dehumanized the people building the system!). How is this really different than Lakoff?
That said, I have often struggled to get my teams to work on what I call the "user conceptual model", which is what we, the designers and implementers of the system, expect to happen inside the user's head. It's hard to convince many code slingers that editors for their data structures are not always the best choice because users may not think of the system in the same way as an implementor.
Joe, is my memory faulty or don't you have/post at another blog that is IT centered? I transitioned to software sales a year ago, and I find that I'm interested in this sort of thing. Thanks.
AOG,
How can you be annoying when you're actually so right? The mere change of a term does nothing to guarantee a change of mindset.
"User" has a functional usage, perhaps in back room discussion about systems. It should not be used in a company's public statements, however, such as in marketing materials.
I eschew the use of "users" and instead say "customers," "members," and "clients," depending on the most appropriate usage. That works well with our enterprise software model.
Phil, I have at times posted on other blogs, on topics related to IT. It has never been a sustained or main activity.
Um, there is a made-up word for "users" that reflects on the attitudes of certain segments of IT. I won't mention it here in polite company -- one can go look up the "Unix Hater's Handbook"on the Web and you will quickly find it.
That "certain made-up word" conveys the degree of condenscension that some have had towards others who are customers or consumers of their services but in the minds of the providers are lacking in some way. It also conveys part of the experience of the user-consumer-customer in dealings with some of the providers.
Maybe it is just me, but I have found that world-view more common in the academic Unix community, and it is part of why PC's and Microsoft operating systems had made so many inroads.