it sure won’t be found in developing a third, shittier [networked technology] that you think people will find “easier to use”

@Lady Well, definitionally not for a "shittier" one, but arguably making a better one can make it easier to learn and more attractive for more people to want to use it, no?

@aschmitz @Lady but insisting that it's what they want and need is rather a problem.
EdTech, are you listening?

@aschmitz it’s obviously not black and white, but i would distinguish between “people who want to use it but can’t, because it is too difficult” and “people who don’t want to use it”. i think making things easier for the first category is definitely a good thing. but i think what actually happens a lot of the time is making things easier for the second category, so they can be more easily compelled into using it anyway

@Lady I guess that's fair. That said, I think a lot of "make this more attractive for people to use" *should* involve "make it a compelling thing for them to actually use". (Not that "people should use this" is generally a good goal in and of itself, but if you think your thing is great and more people should use it, you need to figure out why they aren't, and often that's a mix of {lack of (perceived?) utility} and {difficulty of starting / continued use}. Improving both is good!)

@aschmitz i think oftentimes in these sorts of conversations the cart gets placed before the horse, tho

i think it’s fine to increase utility and make something compelling *for a set of already defined stakeholders*. if you have stakeholders, and they don’t want to use the thing, it’s ok to find out why, and try to change it so that they will want to use it

but i think you get into real problems when you say “these people aren’t currently stakeholders, but if we convince them with THIS feature, maybe they will be.” no. they aren’t your stakeholders. wait until they have a stake in your project before you go and invoke them