ME: [[[do you agree with prof that swe in cs teaches code style not ux building? and ux classes spend too much time on visual gui from html web design art days? that sw sux for business reasons, but winners and losers still correlate with ux?]]] COPILOT (selections): Computer science programs overwhelmingly emphasize: algorithms data structures compilers operating systems distributed systems formal correctness code style and maintainability These are all valuable, but they optimize for internal quality, not external experience. Most CS programs treat "the user" as: a theoretical abstraction a source of input a consumer of output Not a human with cognitive limits, expectations, and goals. Many UX courses still carry DNA from: graphic design web design studios early GUI design HTML/CSS layout classes "make it pretty" aesthetics So students learn: color theory typography layout grids wireframes and mockups In other words: they learn how to draw the interface, not how to engineer the experience. This is why UX grads often struggle to argue with engineers -- they lack the vocabulary to talk about system behavior, not just visuals. The deeper truth: UX is a systems discipline, not a visual one This is the part both CS and traditional UX education miss. Real UX requires understanding: human cognition distributed systems latency caching state management error handling concurrency device constraints incentives organizational politics UX is not "make it pretty." UX is designing the behavior of a complex socio-technical system under real constraints. Most programs don't teach that. The best UX practitioners understand systems, not just screens. The gap between SWE and UX is structural, not personal. The future belongs to people who can bridge that gap. ME: [[[prof's idea is that marketing wants to max things. but they should get to 90% nudge and be happy, not try for 98% and lose the whole war after "winning" the battle.]]] COPILOT: Your professor is describing a real, recurring failure mode in modern product organizations: when marketing (or growth, or engagement teams) tries to squeeze out the last few percentage points of a metric, they often destroy the long-term UX, which then destroys the long-term business. And yes -- the dynamic is exactly what you said: They "win" the battle (98% engagement) but lose the war (users leave). Let's break down why this happens, why the 90% rule is smart, and how it fits into the broader UX/business relationship. 🎯 1. Marketing incentives push toward maximization, not optimization Marketing and growth teams are rewarded for: increasing click-through increasing conversion increasing retention increasing ad impressions increasing "engagement" These are monotonic metrics -- more is always "better" on paper. So they push: more notifications more popups more nudges more interstitials more personalization more "are you sure you want to leave?" more "rate us!" prompts Each one adds friction, annoyance, or cognitive load. Individually, each nudge "works." Collectively, they erode trust and usability. 🧨 2. The 90% rule: stop before you break the system Your professor's idea is essentially: Get 90% of the gain with 10% of the annoyance. Don't chase the last 8% if it costs you the whole relationship. This is a classic diminishing returns curve: The first nudge gives +10% engagement The second gives +4% The third gives +2% The fourth gives +1% The fifth gives +0.5% The sixth gives +0.2% The seventh makes users uninstall the app Marketing sees the +0.2% and says "ship it." UX sees the uninstall curve and says "stop." Both are right in their own incentive systems. Only one is right for the product. 🧱 3. Why pushing to 98% breaks UX Because the last few percentage points require: interrupting the user hijacking attention blocking flows adding friction manipulating emotions cluttering the interface overriding user intent These are anti-UX patterns. They "work" in the short term because they exploit cognitive biases. They fail in the long term because users adapt, resent, and churn. 🧠 4. The paradox: business causes bad UX, but UX still predicts winners This is the part you asked about, and yes -- it's true. ✔️ Business pressures often cause bad UX ads engagement KPIs quarterly goals growth targets legal requirements security friction marketing experiments ✔️ But UX still correlates with winners Even in a messy business environment, the products that win: reduce friction respect user intent minimize interruptions provide predictable flows handle errors gracefully feel fast feel trustworthy This is why: iPhone beat BlackBerry Chrome beat Firefox Slack beat HipChat Zoom beat WebEx TikTok beat Vine Figma beat Sketch These weren't marketing victories. They were experience victories. 🧩 5. Why the professor's "90% is enough" rule is strategically correct Because UX is a long-term compounding asset, and marketing is a short-term optimizing force. If you let marketing push to 98%: UX degrades trust erodes users churn acquisition costs rise retention falls brand perception collapses If you stop at 90%: UX stays healthy trust stays intact users stick around long-term metrics improve the product survives The professor is basically saying: "Don't mortgage the future for a tiny present-day metric bump." And that's exactly right. 🧭 6. The deeper insight: UX is the immune system of the product Marketing, growth, ads, legal, and security all push entropy into the system. UX is the discipline that: protects the user protects the flow protects the brand protects long-term value When UX is weak, the product becomes a Frankenstein of competing incentives. When UX is strong, the product becomes coherent, trustworthy, and lovable. ME: [[[so then they say they can't leave because they're captive. but they hate. unnecessarily. and the company spends so much budget on good will image. and they WILL leave or reduce use.]]] You're describing one of the most predictable, well-documented failure loops in modern tech companies: the captive-user illusion. It goes like this: Marketing pushes harder and harder to extract engagement. UX degrades because every nudge, popup, and friction point accumulates. Users complain, but leadership says: "They won't leave. They're locked in." The company spends millions on brand, goodwill, PR, and image to counteract the resentment. Eventually users do leave, or reduce usage, or stop recommending the product. Leadership is shocked because the metrics looked fine -- until they didn't. This is not hypothetical. It's a pattern. 🎯 The core truth: Captive users aren't captive. They're simmering. Companies tell themselves: "We're too big to fail." "Switching costs are high." "Everyone uses us." "Where else will they go?" But users don't need to fully leave to hurt the business. They can: reduce usage stop exploring new features turn off notifications block emails avoid upgrades stop recommending the product switch for new tasks but keep legacy data use competitors in parallel move slowly but steadily away This is how giants die: not with a bang, but with a slow erosion of trust and engagement. 🧨 The paradox: Companies spend fortunes on goodwill while simultaneously burning goodwill. They invest in: brand campaigns "we care about users" messaging community outreach glossy redesigns corporate social responsibility PR damage control But at the same time, they ship: interruptive ads forced logins dark patterns endless popups nagging notifications confusing flows broken state recovery slow, server-dependent UI It's like spending millions repainting a house while termites eat the foundation. 🧱 Why leadership believes the "captive user" myth Because short-term metrics lie. Daily active users stay high Revenue stays high Churn looks stable Engagement bumps from nudges look good A/B tests show "wins" But these metrics don't measure resentment. They don't measure: trust frustration fatigue avoidance negative word-of-mouth willingness to switch long-term loyalty By the time those show up in the numbers, it's too late. 🧠 The deeper dynamic: UX debt compounds like interest Every annoying popup, every forced login, every slow spinner, every broken back button adds to a reservoir of irritation. Users tolerate it -- until they don't. Then one day: a competitor launches a new platform emerges a migration tool appears a regulation forces portability a cultural shift happens And suddenly the "captive" user base evaporates. This is exactly how: MySpace died BlackBerry died Internet Explorer died Yahoo Mail died HipChat died WebEx lost dominance Evernote collapsed Vine disappeared None of these died because users couldn't leave. They died because users wanted to leave. 🎨 The professor's point is strategic, not emotional Your professor is saying: "Stop trying to squeeze the last 8% out of users. You're poisoning the well you drink from." And they're right. The 90% rule is about sustainability: Get most of the gain Avoid user resentment Protect long-term trust Keep UX clean Keep the product lovable Avoid death by a thousand cuts Companies that follow this rule win. Companies that don't eventually face a reckoning. 🧭 The real takeaway Users don't leave because of one bad decision. They leave because of a thousand small ones. And the tragedy is: most of those decisions were made by teams who believed users were "captive." They weren't. They were just waiting for a reason to go.