(I can’t find the artist’s webpage to link to, just some credits saying that this might be a translated Russian comic posted by Piterskii Punk)

  • superkret@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    The software isn’t made for the user, because the user isn’t the one paying for it.

    • doctortran@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      The point is the client presumably paid for it for their users, who are their customers, but they have no idea what those users want.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Well, that’s the thing, it’s often the case that whilst the client is supposedly doing it for their users, in practice it’s not and is doing it for other reasons.

        Mind you, I think that is more common when the software is being developed for a client which is basically a Manager in the same company as the users of the software (for example in In-house Development or Consultancy work developing a solution for a company) were in the absence of the very clear pressure vector which is the customers not buying the product (internal end-users are almost never given a choice to use or not that software, though they can at times informally boycot software they think hinders their work and get the project killed) things are often designed for the Manager rather than for the Users.

        (Note that this is not necessarily done in a knowing purposeful way: it’s just that when it’s some external manager providing the requirements to the developers for the software being made for the area that managers overseens - though sometimes it’s even more indirect - things tend to be seen from the perspective of said manager not the end-users, hence designed to match how that manager sees things and thinks things work, which is often different from how the actual users see things. This cartoon perfectly illustrates that IMHO - it looks fine for the “manager” whilst looking quite different for the “end-user”).

        Even is B2C you see that: notice the proliferation of things like Microtransactions in Games, which are hardly the kind of thing gamers - who are the end-users of games - wanted to have but which definitelly the management of the big Publishers wanted.

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          More examples:

          • software for doing stuff management wants done that is some tedious crap that the employees fundamentally hate dealing with. See workday.
          • Streaming software that has the providers agenda and presents to a user browsing the stuff the provider wants then to see. Also features like aggregating their video content from multiple providers or at least helping then find the company that has the rights for content they do not have would be loved by users but absolutely a nono for the provider.
          • Software that meets a check box with cheap company wide licensing so they can check a box to say employee requirements are met, without employee feedback.
          • Software that wants to ensure they have relatively predictable recurring revenue forever. So they take their software and lock it to being “cloud only/subscription only”.