[AlotOfReading]

It goes the other way as well. Usage data isn't equivalent to asking users either. A solid percentage of bad decisions in tech can be traced to someone, somewhere forgetting that distinction and trusting usage data that says it's it's okay to remove <very important feature> because it's infrequently used.

[junon]

This. If I'm forced to use a feature I hate because it's the only way to do something, the "ground truth" reflects that I like that feature. It doesn't tell the whole story.

[groby_b]

Most metrics teams are reasonably competent and are aware of that. Excepting "growth hackers"

I haven't been in a single metrics discussion where we didn't talk about what we're actually measuring, if it reflects what we want to measure, and how to counterbalance metrics sufficiently so we don't build yet another growthhacking disaster.

Doesn't mean that metrics are perfect - they are in fact aggravatingly imprecise - but the ground truth is usually somewhat better than "you clicked it, musta liked it!"

[chillfox]

And yet, the observable evidence of changes in software that collect metrics directly contradict this.

[dpark]

Eh, there are a lot of cases where teams A/B test their way into a product that sucks.

[hombre_fatal]

Yeah, it's not a good discussion without concrete examples.

One: Building a good UX involves guesswork and experiments. You don't know what will be best for most users until you try something. You will often be wrong, and you rarely find the global maximum on the first try.

This applies to major features but also the most trivial UI details like whether users understand that this label can be clicked or that this button exists.

Two: Like all software, you're in a constant battle to avoid encumbering the system with things you don't actually need, like leaving around UI components that people don't use. Yet you don't want to become so terse with the UI that people find it confusing.

Three: I ran a popular cryptocurrency-related service where people constantly complained about there being no 2FA. I built it and polished a UX flow to both hint at the feature and make it easy to set up. A few months later I saw that only a few people enabled it.

Was it broken? No. It just turns out that people didn't really want to use 2FA.

The point being that you can be super wrong about usage patterns even after talking to users.

Finally: It's easy to think about companies we don't like and telemetry that's too snitchy. I don't want Microslop phoning home each app I open.

But if we only focus on the worst cases, we miss out on the more reasonable cases where thoughtful developers collect minimal data in an earnest effort to make the UX better for everyone.

[ragall]

> You don't know what will be best for most users until you try something.

That's because you don't understand your users. If you did, you wouldn't need to spy on them.

> you rarely find the global maximum on the first try

One never finds the "global maximum" with telemetry, at best a local sort-of maximum. To find what's best, you need understanding, which you never get from telemetry. Telemetry tells you what was done, not why or what was in the people's mind when it was done.