by Paula Thornton
June 4, 2007 at 5:14 pm
· Filed under 2.0 Design Thinking
Back in mid-May, Jevon posted commentary around Jakob Nielsen’s perspective on 2.0, featured on the BBC site.
Unfortunately Jevon’s source made a critical mistake. Nielsen actually doesn’t see things from a technology perspective. He ‘claims’ to see things from the ‘user’s perspective, but I argue that the minute you call the individual for whom you claim to defend a “user” you’ve already demoted them to a role that is subjective to something else…not as the center stage actor that determines which props get used, when, for what purpose, and to what extent (who are we to question people who like to use business cards to pick their teeth? — usability professionals would never consider assessing business cards in their effectiveness as a dentrifice tool).
So, be sure to check out other perspectives on Jakob’s 2.0 claims, as voiced by practitioners in a different conversation. While many try to soften Jakob’s perspective, some also clearly see 2.0 only from a technology perspective, and not from a design thinking perspective (the possibilities rather than the prescriptions).
Permalink
I think you misrepresent Nielsen’s view to some extent. Jakob represents the user, only by virtue of the fact, that he looks at sites purely from a usability perspective. Over the years, he has studied in great detail how people (users if you will) interact with web sites and he as a great deal of data to back up his claims. He works directly with people as they interact with web sites and studies what works and what doesn’t.
I think you are overreacting to the terms user. If you substitute the term visitor or the phrase individual using the web site, I think you would see that he is representing the person (whatever you call him or her) who interacts with site. I don’t think anyone can deny that we all interact with web sites and that design matters when we do. If a site is poorly designed, it doesn’t serve the person interacting with it.
That is not to say, that I agree with everything Jakob writes because I don’t, but I want you to understand that by splitting hairs over semantics, you unduly dismissing what he does.
» Subscribe to the RSS feed for these comments
HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Additional comments powered by BackType
