
We are not normal people - libovness
http://justinjackson.ca/we-are-not-normal-people/?utm_content=buffer495cb&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
======
pessimizer
I don't know who "we" is, but there's nothing abnormal about programmers as
programmers. Currently the profession is dominated by a few narrow
demographics which have a limited understanding of people outside of those
demographics, but that's a social issue, not one that comes along with
technical competence.

My major problem with dealing with clients/customers that I'm doing custom
work for is that instead of telling me what they do, or what they want to be
able to do, in language that they understand, they convert it into their own
private techspeak. They incorrectly drop in technical words that they've heard
somewhere, and they ask for specific brands of software that they've never
seen and often don't understand.

I _am_ a normal person. Tell me your goals and your problems in plain English,
and I'll figure out how to get it done. I'm pretty good at it, and if I can't
help you I can probably find you someone who can.

~~~
j_baker
I don't even think that this is even a case of that. The writer is obviously
not a programmer (he even uses the "Some of my best friends are _x_ " line
where _x_ is some type of person you are trying to convince people you don't
hate). It seems to me that the writer is trying to peg programmers into a hole
where all we do is say "We _have_ to do this with the newest CSS Framework
using the neatest database and the coolest programming language." And I think
that's clearly a load of crap.

What bothers me most about this is the idea that programmers are some kind of
underclass that just doesn't get "normal" people. The truth is that we're
people too who have a lot of the same needs as "normal" people.

~~~
pandler
> What bothers me most about this is the idea that programmers are some kind
> of underclass that just doesn't get "normal" people. The truth is that we're
> people too who have a lot of the same needs as "normal" people.

I think the author was simply trying to articulate a rift that sometimes
occurs between a party with a (perceived or actual) problem and the party with
solutions for that problem. According to his barbershop example, that
problem/solution rift is the result of a fundamental misunderstanding of the
problem statement. If I could abstract the article in one sentence, I would
say, "If you are trying to solve __a problem that you yourself do not have __,
make sure you actually understand the problem from the perspective of the
party you are solving it for before you go building things. "

The author may have gone a bit far in generalizing programmers/engineers, but
would you agree it is fair to say that it is easy enough for _anyone_ to fall
into the aforementioned trap if they are not conscious of it?

An occurring theme I have noticed while speaking with people (not just
engineers and/or programmers) is that we have a tendency to project ourselves
on other people. I don't think that is a bad thing in moderation (that's a
different matter of discourse), but I have had at least two different
conversations with entrepreneurs where they simply could not for the life of
them understand why someone would rather "just get a job working for someone
else" than start their own company. It simply does not register in their world
view that someone does not share their way of thinking. My anecdote is
tangential at best, but my point is that the object of the article is not to
diminish programmers. Rather, it is to elevate the perspective of those
subject to a certain myopia that they would otherwise not think to confront.

~~~
sqrt17
Successful product management is exactly closing that rift. Product management
is distinct from either programming (making things) or sales (selling things
to people).

The argument made in the article is "you are a programmer. Therefore you don't
get product management techniques nor sales. Therefore you should buy my
book."

It's a typical sales technique: Creating a sense of inadequacy in your target
and right away offering a solution.

If you're cynical, you will notice that there's no guarantee of any kind that
the solution you're being sold on actually helps. Because, people good at
sales are more likely to be good at selling you random things than to be
effective teachers of the knowledge they're claiming for themselves.

patio11 did a lot of good in actually teaching people to look at a market
that's not themselves, but there are a lot of people following him who
primarily want to make money with e-books because that is their most effective
way of monetizing their skills in the absence of any ability to build
products.

------
dpcan
Also, we sometimes won't ask questions or talk to potential consumers for FEAR
that our "great" idea will be negated.

The excitement of building something, using new technology, solving a problem
(whether it exists or not) is exciting. Then you might start seeing dollar
signs, or fame, or respect among peers, etc, in your mind. Nobody wants to
INVITE someone to shut down those thoughts or feelings.... but we must.

I have a few ideas on my list that I think are really good. But I haven't
started building them yet because I know I have to talk to a few people in
certain industries first to confirm the ideas are good. They just sit there
though. For some of these ideas, I'd rather they continue being a pipe dream
instead of talking to someone and possibly have them shot down.

Or maybe I'm really not normal.

~~~
Udo
Sometimes, customers don't know what they might need. The danger of talking to
potential customers when designing a piece of software lies in the problem
that you're going to get a _long_ list of convolute feature requests that, if
implemented, doesn't result in anything usable. On top of that, the exemplary
barber is unlikely to ever use _anything_ besides paper. We might not be
normal people, and normal people are unlikely to give meaningful design input.

In my experience it makes sense to talk to them twice, once to determine
general needs, and then a second time to actually have them try out the
prototype.

~~~
wpietri
Yeah, that is a common mistake. Customers are experts on their problems. _We_
are experts on solutions. Good products are found at the intersection of those
two circles.

I never believe uncritically what customers say about solutions. And I never
believe what developers say about customer problems. Especially when that
developer is me.

------
janj
I'm one of those developers who thinks that marketing in general is 'scummy'
and this article has done nothing to change that perception. I'm willing to
acknowledge that there can exist marketing that is not scummy but it's hard
for me to think of real world examples. Can someone describe for me the
difference between scummy marketing and, I guess I'll call it 'ethical'
marketing? I love building things that people enjoy using but I hate sales and
marketing.

~~~
ryanio
Did you think this article was scummy? Probably not, it provided some real
value and insight. And guess what, it was a piece of content marketing for his
new book. I was pleasantly surprised at the end with his CTA (call-to-action).

Marketing is just finding a way to communicate your value proposition to your
target market. Yes, there are plenty of scummy ways out there -- but some
awesome real-world examples come from our favorite tech startups like
37signals (e.g. their books) and Atlassian (e.g. their git tutorials).

That's the great thing about the inbound/content marketing movement these days
-- you are typically not paying people to read it, so you first and have to
step back and think, "what can I write about that would grab the genuine
interest of people I want to reach?"

Just some thoughts from a product marketing manager at a startup in NYC.

~~~
tbirdz
In all honesty, I starting reading the article because I was lured in by the
title (even though it's a bit link baity). Why are these people not normal,
and why am I one of them?

Then I started reading, realized it was about developers marketing. I have
never really considered marketing my strong suit so I continued reading.

When he started talking about his book, I felt as though I had been tricked,
and I got a little mad. To me, it cheapened the article, and made me feel as
if the author didn't really care about informing people, but rather was just
looking to promote his book. At that instant I knew he had posted this link on
Hacker News not to be informative, but to prey on developers with weak
marketing skills, and get them to pay for his book. I normally wouldn't
comment on something like this, but since you said so anyway, I would say this
is an unethical advertisement because it pretends to be an article, but it
actually was an advertisement. If he had said right out, "I have written a
book on marketing for developers, here is a sample, and if you are interested
you can purchase it here", then I might have been more inclined to purchase it
(of course the book isn't even finished yet, so there would be no way to buy
it anyway even if I was interested, but that's a separate issue I won't get
into here.) Rather, instead the article left a bad taste in my mouth and
reinforced my opinion of marketing as something scummy I wouldn't want to get
involved with.

~~~
mindcrime
_At that instant I knew he had posted this link on Hacker News not to be
informative, but to prey on developers with weak marketing skills, and get
them to pay for his book._

OK, the fact that you would use a term like "prey on" in this context tells me
that we probably have radically different worldviews, so there may be no point
to this exchange, but...

 _I would say this is an unethical advertisement because it pretends to be an
article, but it actually was an advertisement_

There's no particular reason a piece of content can't be intended to be _both_
legitimately informative, AND serve to drive awareness of something your
selling. In this case, ask yourself this: If you took away the last paragraph
or two of the article, would the rest of it still have been informative? Would
you have gotten value from it? If so, how is it not an informative article,
just because of the blurb tacked onto the end, sharing information about the
author's book? Especially when the book is relevant to the audience who would
likely discover that article?

OK, I get that a lot of developers just have a sort of general aversion to
"all things commercial". Hell, I used to be that way to some extent, but yet I
always found marketing fascinating, and now that I run a startup, I find
marketing essential, so maybe my views have shifted a bit. Anyway, I
understand - to a point - that a lot of us find that commercial interests take
away from some notion of essential "purity" or whatever when it comes to
technical content. But to call this kind of content marketing "unethical" is a
bit extreme, IMO.

~~~
tbirdz
If it has value on its own without the paragraphs about buying his book,
surely it would have just as much value if the author moved the final
paragraphs to the front, and clearly identified it as an advertisement for his
book. The fact that he did not do that indicates that he thought less people
would read it if they knew it was an advertisement right from the start. So
then the author thought he would have to trick people if he wanted to get them
to read the advertisement, so he sneaked it in at the end. This intent to
deceive is what I am calling unethical. Now, sure this could be an effective
technique, but the kind of deceit and trickery usually involved in such
marketing leaves me with a bad taste.

~~~
mindcrime
The point is, there isn't a binary distinction between "it's an advertisement"
and "it's informative content". It's a legitimately informative and
interesting article, whether or not he mentions his book. So what difference
does it make if he mentions the book at the beginning, or the end, or not at
all?

And putting that stuff at the bottom has nothing to do with being tricky, or
sneaky, or unethical. It just makes more sense to mention the book _after_ the
author has demonstrated some credibility through the content in the earlier
part of the article.

~~~
verisimilidude
The message, whether informative, promotional, or both, ultimately needs to
reach its audience. On both counts, this article failed to reach tbirdz and
likely many others.

It wouldn't have been too much trouble to bring those skeptics back to the
conversation by adding a short disclaimer closer to the beginning of the
article. So why not do it? If the article is going to be both informative and
promotional, some will want that expectation to be set right from the
beginning. And if the informative bits can stand on their own merit, there's
no risk to the promotional side in adding the early disclaimer. (IMO, it's not
an unreasonable request, and not without precedent.)

------
jiggy2011
"increasing the technical challenge while creating a product does not increase
the chance for more sales"

This is true to a point, but if your strongest suite is your raw technical
ability then it may be best for you to pursue problems that have remained
unsolved because of technical challenges that have put others off. A
significant technical barrier is also nice to have if it means you can get the
market before your competition catches up.

Even a mediocre implementation of something "impossible" can make a lot of
impact. See bitcoin.

~~~
sillysaurus2
_Even a mediocre implementation of something "impossible" can make a lot of
impact. See bitcoin._

Bitcoin was perhaps the worst possible example you could have chosen... The
implementation was the opposite of mediocre; its code predicted and solved
implementation problems that no one realized were problems, except Satoshi.
And on a technical level, the client has only experienced _one_ problem that
had to be rolled back. There are few other implementations of anything that
have that kind of track record.

A better example of a mediocre implementation of something would be the
original Quake engine. Ha, got you, just kidding. Actually, I can't think of
anything that's made "a lot of impact" while also being both a mediocre
implementation and very difficult on a technical level. Even Minecraft wasn't
mediocre. Difficulty and mediocrity seem to be opposites, the way magnetic
poles are.

~~~
fibbery
Would Twitter v1 count?

~~~
ForHackernews
No. Figuring out how to post short bits of text on a website is not a
difficult technical problem. All of the "hard" problems twitter has solved
came later as a result of scaling up to millions of users and hundreds of
millions of bits of text.

------
nine_k
At Yandex (Russia's largest search engine) among engineers they/we used to
have a motto: "I am non-representational" ("я не репрезентативен"), reminding
about just that. Another useful motto was "I'm not your target audience". Some
even had these on T-shirts.

You, the developer, are not a normal user, by definition (unless you're
building tools for fellow developers). Anything user-facing should be tested
on real users, on members of the target audience. What they find convenient
and useful may seem inconvenient and useless to you. This is OK; such a view
is usually reciprocal.

BTW this is often a point of contention in open-source software. It is built
mostly by engineers. If the target audience does not also consist of
engineers, users may find the UI confusing and inconvenient, despite authors'
best effort to make it clear and convenient _for themselves_.

------
edw519
Great post! This really hits the sweet spot for so many here at HN.

I especially like:

 _The problem is that all of this is focused on us, the creator, and not on
the customer, the consumer._

 _If we 're actually going to sell products, we need to quit thinking about
what's cool to us, and focus on what customers actually need._

I've talked about this here so many times, I don't have much more to add. I'd
just direct you to #195 and Chapter 10 here:
[http://static.v25media.com/edw519_mod.html](http://static.v25media.com/edw519_mod.html)

Justin, this is important work and I look forward to it. Let me know how I can
help (email in profile). I wish you great success. This community could really
use it.

------
Pxtl
On the barber anecdote, I think something that a lot of software solutions
miss is how _fast and flexible_ paper is. It's ready for you the _instant_ you
need it, and you can draw arbitrary shapes quickly and easily in addition to
text.

We're still feeling out getting this convenience into user's hands. Keyboarded
platforms suck for drawing/using standing up, tablets suck for typing.

Ultimately, the only thing I could offer this barber is a cloud-synced
whiteboard with week-planner drawn in-behind the screen, and the only
advantage it would have over paper is cloud syncing.

~~~
jsaxton86
Does the barber need arbitrary shapes in this case?

It looks like his pain point was that he was walking to a computer. Perhaps
having a tablet by his phone could fix this problem? It could be as easy as
the paper calendar solution, but since it's all being done electronically, you
could allow people to schedule appointments online and such.

~~~
badman_ting
> Does the barber need arbitrary shapes in this case?

But why is the default assumption that the barber needs software, and we must
prove out that he doesn't? The barber just wants to note some info and get on
with things.

~~~
astine
Because we are software writers and we are looking for problems to which our
skills are a solution. The barber might just need another paper calendar, but
then where does that leave me, the software developer? It leaves me still in
need of a job.

~~~
eropple
Then find one, but don't waste everyone's time selling things to people who
won't realize value from them. You'll either fail or hurt people in doing so.

------
epx
Sometimes a software puts the business in a cast.

Me and my friends used to go to a cafeteria every day. Every day we needed to
reach for change money, etc. We suggested the cashier to create a "pre-paid"
account for every person so we could pay once a month, in advance, with credit
card. He/she could not do it because "the system does not implement this".

In another epoch, I went every day to the same restaurant, at the fourth day
the cashier offered to open an account to me. She opened a big notebook and
put my name in a page, case solved. (She even offered post-paid bit I took
pre-paid because I detest owing money.)

~~~
tanzam75
ERP software is notorious for doing this.

Many a growing company has found itself forced to change its business
processes to align with the SAP way of doing things, instead of the other way
around.

At the top end of the scale, companies are large enough to write custom
software. At the bottom end of the scale, you can't yet justify buying
software, so a lot of processes are still done manually.

It's in the middle that you tend to get squeezed. You're too big to do things
on paper, but you don't have the in-house development talent to customize the
software to fit your needs.

------
mathattack
This is true for many things.

In a marketing class long ago the professor asked what % of the US beer
industry was imported. The answers were all over the place, with most answers
between 30 and 50%. She responded with, "It's less than 10%, and this is why
you have to look at the #s rather than intuition even if you're a consumer of
the product yourself."

Technical complexity and fancy features aren't what helps crack the bottom of
the market, which is the heart of disruptive innovation. "Because it's cool
and I like it" may have worked for Steve Jobs, but he's the exception and not
the rule.

~~~
dictum
> In a marketing class long ago the professor asked what % of the US beer
> industry was imported. The answers were all over the place, with most
> answers between 30 and 50%. She responded with, "It's less than 10%, and
> this is why you have to look at the #s rather than intuition even if you're
> a consumer of the product yourself."

You'd just have to take a look at what brands sell the most in the US to get
an approximate answer. I'm not American so I can say for certain, but except
for the yuppie preference for microbrews, most Americans stick to domestic
light beers — Budweiser, Coors, Miller.

Per the essay, _I 'm not normal_ and most people don't really know the
companies that make the products they consume, but estimating 50% of the US
beer industry to be imported is something fairly inadequate for someone in
college taking a marketing class.

Maybe the german-sounding Budweiser/Anheuser-Busch threw them off, but I'd
guess most college students either drink (legally or not) or see people
drinking, and could make a better estimate.

~~~
mathattack
This was before the craft brew revolution. I think so many folks drank Corona,
Heinekin and Molson that they assumed everyone else did. But the power
drinkers (multiple pitchers a night) go with Busch, Bud and Miller High Life.

The general point of overconfidence is very true.

------
romanovcode
Nothing is more normal for an individual than thinking he is _not_ normal.

~~~
arethuza
Isn't that the Forer effect (or at least related to it):

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect)

------
mgkimsal
In that barber example... selling to the barber directly might make the most
sense, but better scheduling software would allow people to self-schedule
(well, 'better' for end users). I _hate_ trying to coordinate a time with my
barber - his schedule is erratic, mine is erratic sometimes, the place doesn't
call me back some times, they don't email, etc.

What is efficient for _them_ as a business is highly inefficient for _me_ as a
consumer, and I may end up taking my business elsewhere because of it. I like
the guy and he does a good job, but there are other places to go. If any of
them make it easier on me to schedule on my terms, I'll go there.

So... yes, it might be easier for the barber to just look at a piece of paper
on the wall, does it increase his business? Is he looking for more business,
or an easier job?

~~~
pbhjpbhj
IME people will do things like book online and then call because they don't
trust the booking app. And that's the people that will bother to fill out the
form rather than just ring up anyway.

If you're relying on an online system too it has to be absolutely solid -
which means expense. Or at least more expense than a wall-calendar or a paper
diary [book].

It's hard to have an over-view of, say, the next couple of months work with an
online system - a big wall-calendar makes things easier to visualise. Of
course you could have a massive touch-screen computer ...

If you're running a salon, with multiple barbers then I can see it being cost-
effective to try and have customers self-schedule but it seems for a single
barber that they'd have to be very up-market to make it worth while.

Would you go to a worse barber so you can schedule online instead of by phone?
Would you pay more, how much, to be able to schedule online?

Personally if I use a barber's it's a simple drop-in service.

[Any suggestions for an appointments booking system to check out?]

~~~
gizzlon
> _It 's hard to have an over-view of, say, the next couple of months work
> with an online system - a big wall-calendar makes things easier to visualis_

I don't doubt that you're right, but it _should_ be much easier with a
computer:

\- It can "think" for itself. For example you could ask it for all available 1
hour slots on a Tuesday or Friday in the next two months, that are also after
3' O clock, and.. and..

\- Regarding overview, you should be able to zoom in and out. Think google
maps vs. normal maps.

Better yet, upload your google calendar an let it suggest a few appropriate
time. Click the one you want. Done.

Edit: does that last one exist? Would be a cool thing to make.. (but then
again, does anyone actually want that? :)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
WRT overview I was thinking from the proprietor's perspective.

The "upload your calendar" might work well but people won't want to give up
their data so I'm thinking a client side component could transmute all a
person's calendar entries to remove the details then upload and do a match
with the store.

Glancing across is always going to work better than zooming IMO.

------
Geee
Actually, computers aren't _just there_ yet. Imagine if we actually had huge
and paper thin displays that could be used like paper, few on the desk, few on
the walls, cheaply and ubiquitously. There's still lots to do to get there,
but we will.

------
workhere-io
_If I have to walk over to the computer, I’ve already wasted too much time._

Wouldn't the point of scheduling software be that, unlike his current phone
solution, he doesn't have to do something when a customer schedules a time?
Ideally he'd enter his work hours and holidays into the scheduling system, and
customers could schedule a time without interrupting his workflow. Then he'd
only need to look at his iPad once in a while to see who the next customer is.

Other than that, I think the article makes an important point.

~~~
widdershins
Barber: "Almost all my bookings happen on the phone, or via text message."

~~~
workhere-io
That's the point: If the barber has a lot of younger customers, the reason
that most of the bookings happen on the phone or via text message is that the
barber doesn't have a good website set up with a decent booking system that
the customers could use instead of the phone.

What OP could have told the barber is this: "We'll put up a system that
enables your customers to schedule a time automatically - that way you'll only
have to schedule times manually in the 20% of cases or so when a customer
prefers to call rather than use the website".

It's not rocket science - plenty of barbers have such a system.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>plenty of barbers have such a system //

I'm really interested in this. Could you link some?

~~~
workhere-io
I've only tried ones in Denmark. Here are a couple of examples (in Danish):

[http://www.hairtools.dk/](http://www.hairtools.dk/)
[http://www.bapoon.dk/Information/for-
frisoerer.htm](http://www.bapoon.dk/Information/for-frisoerer.htm)
[http://hairbydahl.bestilling.nu/?locale=en](http://hairbydahl.bestilling.nu/?locale=en)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Thank you.

------
bsbechtel
“I could build this on the Twilio API!” “I could learn that new CSS
framework!” "I could use this new tool I just purchased!”

I've never thought this way when I learn about some new technology...my way of
thinking has always been "This task I'm doing really sucks, how can I make it
easier?" This way of thinking seems so much more intuitive and less mentally
taxing. Do others here really think the way the author describes? I'm curious.

------
danso
I don't disagree with the OP's overall point...my favorite developers are "not
normal" at least in the sense that, yes, they have an opinionated drive for
perfection that I admire, particularly because it benefits so many of us who
rely on their work.

What I do object to is this zero-sum attitude, that it's either "do cool
technical stuff" or "MAKE MONEY", and wanting the latter implies a direct
reduction of the former. To one extent, that's true...because our time is
finite. But on the other hand "MAKE MONEY" gets in the way of technological
innovations that could leap frog the market?

Why not think of technical innovation/investment as a loss leader? In the same
way that it'd be questionable for a gas station to say, "fuck selling gas,
let's just focus on selling coffee!
([http://www.nbcnews.com/id/23904590/](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/23904590/)),
realize that tech innovation can be the underlying reason for profit, even if
it doesn't have a direct contribution on the balance sheet

------
gesman
If you own the product to-be-built and it is your startup, then you need to
think like a businessman and that includes listening to customers.

But if you work as a salaried employee or contractor - lets face it - you
really in a position to care more about your personal income and care less
about customers who will be buying the product you don't directly benefit
from. You better realize that you can and will be let go on a minute's notice
and no one is going to drop a tear that you're no longer there.

And hence your survival depends on convincing the management to build the
product using technologies that _you can benefit from by knowing them_ , just
in case you decided to quit or will be let go.

Even though above may sounds selfish - this does not mean your personal
interests are not aligned with the company you're working for.

Quite often the opposite - and quite often it's win win for everyone.

------
CodeMage
I agree with the underlying message, which is to _listen_ to your market. I
just feel that the example Justin used is somewhat unfortunate, because I feel
it describes a missed opportunity.

Of course the barber doesn't think he needs anything beyond a better paper
calendar, but what do his customers think? Would they, perhaps, prefer to book
online instead of over the phone?

I guess that what I'm trying to say is that you should definitely listen to
your customers, but you shouldn't let that blind you. It's like that Henry
Ford quote: "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said
faster horses." The problem, of course, is that very few people are Henry Ford
material ;)

------
lutusp
Steve Jobs took exactly the opposite tack -- he would say things like "People
don't know what they want until we tell them" \-- and he succeeded with that
outlook. I'm not saying the article is wrong, only that it's not a self-
evident position.

Chances are a product will succeed or fail for reasons neither the designers
nor the customers understand. Consider the personal computer -- the best minds
in technology were offered a chance to get in at the start, and nearly all of
them turned it down. Hewlett-Packard repeatedly rejected Steve Wozniak's
proposals until he quit and developed his ideas with Steve Jobs in a garage.
Then IBM created a rather limited knockoff PC, expecting it to serve only as
an "entry system" to their main product line, which was large systems. Pretty
soon the tail wagged the dog.

And the Internet -- no one saw it coming, even when it was on top of them. No
one was able to predict any aspect of that phenomenon, something that remains
true.

About people's tastes and choices in entertainment, Hollywood screenwriter
William Goldman famously said, "Nobody knows anything". I agree, and I think
it applies to technology as well.

The bottom line -- if you ask customers what they want, what they might buy,
they won't be able to tell you. I disagreed with Steve Jobs about practically
everything, but he was dead right about this.

------
amplification
The whole point of the post is that we are different than our users. What we
want, or what we think is important, often doesn't match up with what users
really need.

------
exodust
There's no reason a creative developer couldn't foresee the barber's
predicament without speaking with the barber.

Patiently visualised, devised imagined scenarios. Phone rings, barber says
"excuse me" to his client and walks over to the phone. But does he put the
comb down first? Perhaps. Barbers have trays handy, but they might walk
around, tools in hand. (This is obvious, and doesn't take research to
imagine.)

The phone needs to be next to the computer - no screen savers, the scheduling
software always on, with clear and large fonts, minimal clutter (generally
good interface design anyway). Think "high quality app design", not "looks
like Excel".

A beautifully designed interface that would impress the barber if
demonstrated. Custom default views and all that.

It's ok to start from the blue sky and work down to the reality instead of
working up from "what the barber likes with his paper calendars". Which isn't
the wrong way, but could skew the potential. Top down isn't wrong, if you've
done your visualising!

Not that research and getting out into the world isn't valuable. (obvious).
I'd probably take a look at the book anyway... sounds ok.

------
WalterBright
I get told constantly that not only am I not a normal person, I'm not a normal
programmer. This is in the context of me listing things I'd like to see in a
product.

The irony is that when I build a product that I'm told that "normal"
people/programmers will want, it usually fails. When I build a product that I
would use myself, with weird features I'm told nobody wants, it does well.

------
shmerl
The point is not just "listening to people" (which is important too). The main
point is "putting yourself in your user's shoes". I.e. one has to think
through various use cases from the perspective of the actual user. That's very
important in any development if you care about robustness, quality, usability
and even security.

------
calinet6
This is a useful perspective, but not the whole picture.

Quality drives a portion of sales. Technical ability to perform, create
features, respond to customer needs, and maintain a service contributes highly
to quality. The technology and tools and process chosen enable that technical
ability to a large degree.

Therefore, some portion of your sales is driven by your technology.

It's useful and important to think at a high level about your customers
directly, at times. This is your UX role, doing user research and
understanding all the intricate details and desires of your users. It's also
marketing, understanding the market and who the target consumers are.

It's also useful and important to ensure you get your process and systems
right to meet that market head-on with the _ability to solve the problem_ that
you now understand. Ideally these are several roles communicating seamlessly.
It's not always ideal, but that's the goal.

------
dclara
Working with software product companies, we always debated on the product is
"technology driven" or "market driven". Back to the days of using EJB, often
times we were technology drive (not all).

That's why we have product team and product manager to work out the
requirements before the development team start to prototype and implement. For
startup companies, this kind of process may seem too luxury in the early
stage, we called it "discover" stage.

Once we define the target market and learn the customer needs, we will build
the most compelling features first. We listen, but not tight to specific
customer needs, because we know the direction we want to build, and gradually
lead the customers toward that end product.

For any new product, customer friction is always there very naturally. That's
why we need marketing and sales team to remove the friction. It's a lot easy
to say than to do.

------
desireco42
Not only that we are not normal as a consumers, but we are also not normal,
for most part as developers, there are huge number of people who just are not
up to speed with latest technology and simply don't use it. It helps to remind
yourself often about that.

------
itsokintheory
Posts with a similar sentiment seem to appear on HN occasionally. I find it
entirely reasonable, but it's also quite banal compared to research on product
design done by people in Participatory Design[1] and User-centered Design[2].
It has often surprised me how limited many North American PMs and software
designers seem to be in their knowledge of these areas.

[1]
[http://hci.stanford.edu/publications/bds/14-p-partic.html](http://hci.stanford.edu/publications/bds/14-p-partic.html)
[2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-
centered_design](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-centered_design)

------
NameNickHN
What the barber shop owner doesn't realize is that an appointment scheduling
software is supposed to reduce phone calls which would decrease the workload
of the staff. Also, what if I want to schedule an appointment when the shop is
closed?

------
nicolax
I wonder why this is a new topic then. Isn't it pretty established in either
Lean Startup or Design Thinking that when building product, we should talk
to/interview/research the people who will be using it? Especially in Design
Thinking, it's required to do needfinding, which is talking to the barber in
this case. And solutions in the brainstorming stage are certainly not confined
within software.

We just need to be constantly reminded that our perception and reasoning about
the world is subjective and often conscious. As designers, or product
builders, we should be willing to understand other people's reasoning, putting
aside ours.

------
onion2k
Being pedantic, if you're thinking “I could use this new tool I just
purchased!” then you're doing things backwards.

~~~
JoeAnzalone
How is that being pedantic? That's one of the main points of the article.

~~~
onion2k
I stopped reading after I saw an opportunity to be pedantic.

------
normloman
Nobody's normal. Every developer and client is unique. And learning to listen
to potential clients is sound advice.

------
talles
This is definitely not a rule of thumb, but this point of view does fit in
most of (small) cases.

Want an example? One of the most beloved practices by the software industry is
kanban boards. It's at least curious how people writing systems prefer to have
a physical board rather than, well, a system.

------
ta_tatata
There are no normal people. By definition normal people do not exist in the
world.

With the title and point of the article being formulated in a way showing a
lack of understanding of the matter, it is doubtful the rest of the post is
any better.

------
_random_
My future recruiter and employer are my customers. I can assure you that they
are most certainly interested in technologies I am going to use. Welcome to
CV-driven development!

------
ballard
If the business is risky (which is probably is), use safer tech choices. If
the business seems boring, use a few extra bleeding edge solutions to engage
us technical folks.

------
GrinningFool
Ah, there.

Another programmer matures, having the same epiphany that every other decent
programmer does at some point in his career.

Welcome to [career] adulthood, it's nice of you to finally join us :)

------
namank
So what, it's the maker mindset. Add to that with the appreciation for _what_
to make, you have a very impactful being indeed.

------
antonios
Insightful post. I wish I'd read something like that years ago, instead of
finding out the hard way. Thank you.

------
kybernetyk
Hmm, sorry but the teaser didn't appeal to me.

Where can I unsubscribe? (Can't find a link.)

------
vickytnz
Or as usability people say: "you are not your user".

------
dominotw
seriously?

~~~
recursive
Yes.

