Should We Be Using The Word “User”?

Do not index

Read time: under 3 minutes

Redefining Terminology: Moving Beyond 'Users' in Tech

I recently stumbled upon a thought-provoking article written by Taylor Majewski that explores the complexities of the term 'user' in technology.

In this piece, Majewski dissects how we define and use this term, urging readers to reconsider its implications. Let’s break it down:

Unpacking the term "user"

For decades, the term "user" has served as a convenient shorthand within the tech industry. It encompasses a broad spectrum of interactions, ranging from individual consumers to automated corporate entities.

While initially practical, its vagueness raises questions about the depth of our technological relationships.

Majewski recounts a revealing anecdote featuring Instagram's Adam Mosseri — highlighting the subtle yet significant transition from referring to individuals as "people" to labelling them as "users." This shift raises important questions about the nature of human-computer interactions and the language we use to describe them.

The term "user" finds its roots in the early days of computing, where it described trained personnel interacting with mainframe computers.

As technology advanced and became more accessible, the term expanded to include a broader demographic, reflecting the democratisation of digital access. However, its widespread adoption lacked precision, perpetuating the notion of individuals as passive entities within the digital landscape.

Advocating for precision

Prominent voices within the tech community, such as Don Norman, have long advocated for replacing "user" with more nuanced terms like "person" or "human." Norman, a cognitive scientist and former Apple employee, highlighted the shortcomings of the term and emphasised the need for language that acknowledges the humanity of individuals interacting with technology.

In a similar vein, Janet Murray, a professor at Georgia Tech and digital media theorist, argued against the term "user" as too narrow and functional. In her book ”Inventing the Medium: Principles of Interaction Design as a Cultural Practice”, she proposed the term "interactor" as an alternative, emphasising its ability to capture the creativity and participation inherent in digital spaces.

In 2012, Jack Dorsey, then CEO of Square, issued a rallying cry on Tumblr, urging the technology industry to discard the term "user." Instead, he advocated for the use of "customers," which he deemed a more honest and direct description of the relationship between products and the people they serve.

In a similar move, Facebook embraced Norman's recommendations and shifted away from user-centric phrasing, opting for "people" instead. However, despite these efforts, the industry continues to grapple with ingrained terminology, as evidenced by Instagram's Mosseri's casual use of the term "user."

What defines us?

In the era of AI, interfaces are evolving, with virtual assistants like Siri and Alexa becoming commonplace conversation partners. This shift challenges traditional notions of user interaction, prompting us to reconsider our role in the digital landscape.

As AI blurs the lines between user and companion, we're left questioning our identity in this evolving technological landscape.

Are we merely users, or is there a more fitting descriptor for our role?

Perhaps it's time to adopt more precise language tailored to specific contexts, whether it's "patients" in healthcare or "readers" in media.

By doing so, we can gain a deeper understanding of the dynamics at play in these interactions.

Time to have a think...

So, after diving into the deep end of the "user" debate, where do we stand?

Majewski's article really got us thinking: are we overcomplicating things?

Sure, language matters, but at the end of the day, isn't it all about whether the tech works for us?

One comment we stumbled upon cut straight to the chase: "Users or people, they don’t care as long as things work."

And hey, they've got a point. Maybe we're spending too much time splitting hairs over terminology when we should be focused on making tech that just, well, does its job.

But hey, we're not here to shut down the conversation. It's important to question and challenge ideas, even if it means redefining some things.

So, what's your take? Are we getting too caught up in semantics, or is it high time we rethink how we talk about tech?

Let's keep the conversation going.

👉

Whenever you're ready, there are 4 ways I can help you:

1. Junior Designer Bundle: Transition to UX with the ultimate handbook (120+ videos, 80+ templates, 75+ examples) to craft an unforgettable portfolio & get hired.

2. Senior Designer Bundle: Become a design leader with systems to help you build a meaningful career & grow your designers. Join 500+ aspiring leaders.

3. UX Portfolio Critique: Get a 20-minute video review of your portfolio. A checklist of actionable things to fix, in less than 48 hours. Get a personalised portfolio critique here.

4. Job Sprint Course: Get battle-proven frameworks and interactive workshops to: build a memorable personal brand, a killer strategy for job applications, and tactics to nail job interviews. Get hired in UX with Job Sprint.