Users are not designers, and "doing what the user asks" is a bad design strategy.
However, I see stakeholders saying this to justify another, even worse design strategy: "doing what the stakeholder asks."
*Everyone's* change requests are starting points for the design process. User requests tell us about friction. Stakeholder requests, about business need. But it's #ux #design's job to synthesize those data points into *what we're going to do about it.*
@PavelASamsonov That's something I hate about Windows 11... designed by a handful of users and stakeholders who want to promote ad widgets. What do you think about allowing users more diverse options to fit their needs? https://pocketnow.com/explaining-windows-11s-bad-design/
@adam Options are great, but good defaults are even better.
@PavelASamsonov How do you figure that? When was the last time NOBODY complained about the defaults? Yeah, a good default is great for the majority, but isn't the flexibility to be great for everybody better than only being great for some?
@adam It's not that - it's that remarkably few people change the defaults.
- https://www.nngroup.com/articles/the-power-of-defaults/
- https://uxdesign.cc/the-ux-of-default-settings-in-a-product-9b81586e8886
Often it's because the "tech savvy" user persona represents a miserably tiny portion of the customer base
- https://www.getfeedback.com/resources/ux/users-might-not-tech-savvy-think/
@PavelASamsonov Yes, I'm aware of all that, but I don't see how that makes "good defaults" better than "good defaults plus options"? Maybe you meant that "good defaults" is better than "bad defaults plus options"? I can definitely agree with that!!
@PavelASamsonov Yes, absolutely. We're on the same page now. :)
@adam Yeah that's exactly what I was trying to express! No richness of options can overcome the drawbacks of lousy defaults.