"For some reason, the word audience bothers me."

Why is that? Is it because "audience" has connotations of passivity?

Posted by: Dennis G. Jerz on March 6, 2003 09:15 AM

---

 

Well some folks go on extended rants about describing people as "users"... Just a legacy of the convergence of our fields. Account planners come from advertising and that's the way they're used to saying things.

If you've seen Mitch's presentation, it's clear there are significant parallels, as he described in the article.

OTOH, I think there's some use in the shades of meaning between "users," "audiences" and "viewers" -- which correspond nicely to the do-understand-experience dimensions involved in interactive design.

It can be helpful in getting folks to understand different parts of a site/application/etc. behave differently, for example, some parts _are_ marketing messages aimed at "audiences," others parts are transactional/interactional involving "users," and sometimes yes there are even parts to sites that might be primarily about where "viewers" go to have an interesting experience. The problems with/invective hurled at Flash usually involve mismatched expectations about these usages.

Granted "audience" and "viewer" have increasing overtones of passivity, but they're useful none the less.

Posted by: George Olsen on March 6, 2003 01:02 PM

---

 

Why is that? Is it because "audience" has connotations of passivity?

In short, yes.

Posted by: John S. Rhodes on March 6, 2003 07:59 PM

---

 

I think George made some good comments.

Since my academic training includes studying dramatic literature, and I've done amateur theater, I don't think an "audience" is necessarily passive. A performer definitely gets energy from an audience's gasps, laughs, etc. Even their restlessness provides feedback. And composition theory refers to "audience" all the time, with the understanding that good writing engages the reader critically and intellectually.

I tend to think of "audience" in general terms, as "all the people who might be interested in reading/using/visiting a website," while I think of "visitor" when I think of the individual person's set of activities while interacting with a site.

Just my $.02.

Posted by: Dennis G. Jerz on March 6, 2003 08:20 PM

---

 

Audience is out. Customer is in.

A customer--for whatever reason--chooses to visit your storefront. Once inside, the customer moves through your store of his own free will. He generally wants to look, touch and assess things on his own. He'll welcome your direct contact only when he has a question or comment.

I can't say I've ever walked into a store, sat down in a chair amongst other customers and had store employees parade products and information in front of me.

Posted by: The Swank on March 7, 2003 12:59 PM

---

 

Audience is out. Customer is in.

A customer--for whatever reason--chooses to visit your storefront. Once inside, the customer moves through your store of his own free will. He generally wants to look, touch and assess things on his own. He'll welcome your direct contact only when he has a question or comment.

I can't say I've ever walked into a store, sat down in a chair amongst other customers and had store employees parade products and information in front of me.

Posted by: The Swank on March 7, 2003 01:00 PM

---

 

Dennis raises a good point, and in fact I used to be involved in interactive fiction in the early 1990s, so I'm more than a bit familiar with literary/interpersonal communications theory.

As Dennis points out, "receivers" are rarely truly passive -- they can choose to accept the intended meaning ("deconstructionism" goes way overboard on this) and otherwise react. A classic example are campy movies. Ed Wood thought "Plan 9 from Outer Space" was a horror movie, audiences disagreed.

However, the type of engagement of "audiences" is typically pretty different than "users" -- for lack of better term, we called this the difference between "lean back" (TV/movies) and "lean forward" (computer usage/videogames). Enabling a smooth transition between these two types of flow was a critical problems interactive fiction never really did solve.

I should point out that being a user, audience, viewer or customer aren't mutually exclusively. Even though Swank may have taken a self-directed path through the store, he/she was undoubtedly taking the various advertising displays.

Likewise, I've been a saleperson and Swank is really expressing his/her personal preference to be left alone. I recently bought running shoes and while I made the initial choice, when that didn't fit, the salesperson did in fact suggest alternatives and brought out different shoes until we found a fit.

Especially on higher ticket items (I sold suits), customers often do appreciate having store employees provide products and information (assuming of course the salesperson knows what they're talking about and isn't trying to hard-sell the customer.)

Most salespeople do a lousy job, but the good ones use their own version of UCD. I'd find out what goals the customer had in mind (what did they need a suit for, what budget they had, what their tastes were etc.) and try to find something that suited their needs. That might also include selling them a shirt and tie that matched the suit. This wasn't just upselling, it might also be because I discovered this was a guy who never had a suit and therefore didn't have tie, or last bought polyester one in the 1970s, or who planned to wear a checked shirt with a striped suit to a job interview.

There's actually a lot of good analogies that can be from the customer service industry about provide a good user experience. They're both about interactions.

Posted by: George Olsen on March 7, 2003 02:16 PM

---