Often your 'fixes' are actually removing capabilities that you had, because they were 'too confusing to the user'. GNOME seems to be developed by interface Nazis, where consistently the excuse for not doing something is not 'it's too complicated to do', but 'it would confuse users'.
It is easier to talk than to listen. Pay attention to your clients, your users, your readers, and your friends. Your design will get better as you listen to other people.
Ultimately progress is measured sort of through the eyes of users.
Think of Slide as a giant media network for people to transmit information. The content that's in there now has been provided by users - it's whatever they want it to be.
I would not have the Justice Department prosecuting and raiding medical marijuana users. It's not a good use of our resources.
Your customer is not your user
Sure, but competition is good for the user.
Features that offer value to a minority of users impose a cost on all users.
Good design isn't about making decisions for your users, it's about making those decisions irrelevant.
You can be so bad at so many things. . . and as long as you stay focused on how you're providing value to your users and customers, and you have something that is unique and valuable. . . you get through all that stuff.
The utmost thing is the user experience, to have the most useful experience.
When key users told us something wasn't working, we fixed it - immediately.
I could take on England, but I couldn't take on one heroin user.
The next best thing to having good ideas is recognizing good ideas from your users. Sometimes the latter is better.
Never present a power-user option in such a way that normal users must learn all about it in order to know they don't need to use it.
You take a picture of yourself in some exceptional situation - skydiving or whatever. People always post those photos because it works - you're saying something about yourself that begs a conversation and that's what the users are there for.
An honest design communicates solely the functions and values it offers. It does not attempt to manipulate buyers and users with promises it cannot keep.
Like most early enthusiasts, I always thought the way the Internet encouraged multitasking made users less vulnerable to manipulation, while simultaneously exploiting even more of our brain's capacity than before. Apparently not.
Give users what they actually want, not what they say they want.
Today many people are switching to free software for purely practical reasons. That is good, as far as it goes, but that isn't all we need to do! Attracting users to free software is not the whole job, just the first step.