User Expectations Quotes

The mobile gaming experience is fundamentally limited by this very small screen in front of you that occupies maybe 15 degrees of your field of view. The PC and console experience, you have a 45-degree field of view. VR is 120 degrees: your entire view space. The expectations of users on the platform will rise to levels we've never seen before.

This is what customers pay us for - to sweat all these details so it's easy and pleasant for them to use our computers. We're supposed to be really good at this. That doesn't mean we don't listen to customers, but it's hard for them to tell you what they want when they've never seen anything remotely like it.

Gamers love technology, and they have high expectations.

I am looking at it from the point of view of a harried user, which I am, and I believe that I am much more like the typical non-technical harried user than I am like the people who smoothly operate everything.

Why shouldn't a PC work like a refrigerator or a toaster?

Software sucks because users demand it to.

If you want a machine to be able to interact with people, it better not do things that are surprising to people.

It's a little counterintuitive to people, that doing what people don't expect ends up being what people do expect. But that is true of Mac.

People are forgiving of v 1.0 of a product if it's truly innovative and useful. Then you can get away with a lot. But if you're merely marginally improving the status quo, then you better be rock solid.

The attribution of intelligence to machines, crowds of fragments, or other nerd deities obscures more than it illuminates. When people are told that a computer is intelligent, they become prone to changing themselves in order to make the computer appear to work better, instead of demanding that the computer be changed to become more useful.

Users do not care about what is inside the box, as long as the box does what they need done.

As far as the customer is concerned, the interface is the product.

One of the nastier trends in library management in recent years is the notion that libraries should be 'responsive to their patrons'.

Good information architecture enables people to find and do what they came for. Great information architecture takes find out of the equation: the site behaves as the visitor expects. Poor or missing information architecture neuters content, design, and programming and devalues the site for its owners as well as the audience it was created to serve. It’s like a film with no director. The actors may be good, the sets may be lovely, but audiences will leave soon after the opening credits.

If you put a demo on the net and people say it was the finished version then they're going to say it sucks. I really hate that.

I pride myself in listening. When you have people paying attention to you, your biggest job is to listen what they want. Deliver what your community wants.

If you think you can experience the power of the Internet on a 1-inch screen, you've got to be out of your mind.

When you go to a voice-based interaction, you can't tell people, 'Ask me this question and structure it in this way.' And if they ask a question, and you have a bad answer, first time, maybe they'll be okay with it. Third time, they're going to say, 'This is a complete waste of time. I'm going away.'

Personally, I think that users should be able to use all the functions of a console video game machine as soon as they open the box.

People flock in, nevertheless, in search of answers to those questions only librarians are considered to be able to answer, such as "Is this the laundry?" "How do you spell surreptitious?" and, on a regular basis, "Do you have a book I remember reading once? It had a red cover and it turned out they were twins.

Customers are still setting the technology agenda. Not just you, our customers, but your customers as well. What more and more are telling you is what kind of services they need, and how and when they want those services delivered to them. And in fact, that is just the beginning.

I think that building any product that has a lot of user loyalty is a bit like making a sequel to a great movie or video game - people generally want 'more of the same thing, except better and different.'

Saying that something is accessible gives it this implication that people need something, and thinking that we know what people need or want is really unpleasant. I don't like to think that way, like, predicting what it is that the people want.

I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions. They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next.

Many thought it was a fool's errand - that the browser companies were never going to listen to us. Others argued that, 'Users don't care if you use Web standards.' Well, of course they don't. They just know that your site works better.