[ratww]

+1000. But in my experience the trend started not with developers, but with the other people around them: Product Managers, Designers, Engineering Managers, Steve Jobs wannabes. There was an obvious disdain for users, and they were seen as complete dunces that should be shepherded to whatever new functionality happened to pop up their heads. There was also a complete disdain for the medium: designers used to print design choosing too rigid designs that didn't really work that well on a screen, and only adapting when the market started punishing them.

At first programmers were able to resist all that and have a voice, but lately it seems that the only prestige we retained was the salary, so we must play the same tune as the rest of the band. Agile was an attempt at being "self managed" and have a bit more independence, but that was also corrupted and lots of devs hate it with a passion too, so we're mostly back to practicing non-iterative, Steve-Jobsian-gut-feeling-centric development. Programmers have bought into that toxic mentality too.

And even in better situations, such as my current job, the tasks that cause the most issues, take more developer time and annoy the user the most are always the same: non-idiomatic features (for the web or for desktop apps), often concocted by designers totally disconnected with the audience, who at most did two or three "interviews" where the user said "yeah I could see myself using that".

[jrmg]

non-iterative, Steve-Jobsian-gut-feeling-centric development

This is a misunderstanding of Jobs. It’s true that he had a disdain for what users would _say_ they wanted, but he was very focused on providing the, with something intuitive and easy to use. He wanted to make their lives better, and to ‘surprise and delight’.

He was also very iterative. He regularly saw demos of in-production software (and hardware), and would ask for anything from small tweaks to complete rewrites. He was completely unafraid of throwing away work, and would change his opinions on a dime if they didn’t work out.

[ratww]

Sorry, let me rephrase: I don't think Steve Jobs was like that at all.

But the copycats that don't believe in iterative development or in user research love to pretend they got all figured out before it's out for development.

[zozbot234]

> There was an obvious disdain for users

The disdain for "lusers" came from BOFH sysadmin types, well before it was adopted by the non-"tech", business-focused folks.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

But it became industrialized by business-types. The BOFH thing was personal. They considered (still do, sometimes), users of their systems to be "the great unwashed."

Basically, pests.

Business types look at users as a resource to be exploited to make money.

Basically, livestock.

Different outlook. We try to discourage pests, but we breed and incubate livestock. In neither case, are we particularly interested in the long-term benefit to our users. If anything, the BOFH types are actually working towards the benefit of their "lusers," because that's their job.

I write software that is targeted at a demographic that I actually respect, and sincerely want to benefit with my work (so, naturally, I don't get paid for it).

I'm constantly fighting with "modern software types" that want to treat users of the software that I write as livestock. They -quite literally- can't understand my PoV.

It's fairly discouraging, really. I'm treated like an idiot, because I actually want to help the users of my software.

[jart]

The only way I see that happening is if it becomes easier to crowdsource donations. When your users are the ones putting bread on your table, they're the boss. Whatever they want they get. But sadly it's hard to crowdsource from programmers because there's so few of us. I love building and sharing software that delights my peers. Not because it's a smart thing to do. If money was the thing I cared about, then it'd be more rational to play video games on Twitch and blog about culture conflict on Substack. Rather coding is something I feel compelled to do and I won't stop even if it destroys me.

[Suzuran]

It predates the BOFH a bit as well. I am restoring a PDP-10 to operation and the operating system refers to users as "lusers", non-sanctioned users of the system are "turists" who were just there to gawk at things. It's not so much out of disdain for the people themselves as what they were doing with the computer - when computer resources were limited, it was grating to have to wait while unskilled and uncaring people occupied those resources for frivolous or unnecessary reasons.

Edit: Consider being told something along the lines of "Your DNA sequence has to wait, the CEO has important Facebook posts to read..."

[Majromax]

> The disdain for "lusers" came from BOFH sysadmin types, well before it was adopted by the non-"tech", business-focused folks.

Based on the definitions in the thread, I'd say the BOFH attitude is more the inverse: it is contemptuous towards users, whereas the modern practice is more condescending towards users.

The latter still has a notional ethos of catering to the user, but the Monkey's Paw corruption caters towards the user's most superficial desires, particularly at a first impression, while de-optimizing for the acclimated or "power" user.

[ratww]

Exactly, the modern practice is condescending. The prevalent thinking is that "users don't really know what they want", so there is zero research, zero iteration, zero respect and a lot of corralling in the application to force users into a (lucrative) workflow.

But the treatment itself is first class, unlike with sysadmins of yore.

[wpietri]

I think those are totally different kinds of disdain.

The former is generalized misanthropy plus specific hostility to the individuals who bother them.

The latter is more akin to the feudal lord or the cattle farmer: a lack of empathy plus an eagerness to stuff one's own pockets such that they build exploitative systems.

Sysadmins ultimately just wanted to be left alone to pursue their techie interests. But the MBA types are the opposite. You can't have an upper class without a set of lower classes to provide you with income and feelings of power.