"Product complaints and returns are often caused by poor design, but companies frequently dismiss them as 'nuisance calls,'...". A thesis study out of the Technical University of Enhoven also discovered, "The average consumer in the United States will struggle for 20 minutes to get a device working, before giving up, the study found." From Reuters report, "Complexity Causes 50% of Product Returns"

Let me take this moment to reiterate an important premise to those who insist on referring to the human element as a "user" — clearly a role-based title. Based on your premise, when an individual disengages and refuses to partake in a product, what role do you assign to them then?

March 8, 2006: Not to my surprise, someone contacted me directly, asking again why I have such an issue with the term "user". A few excerpts from my reply: "Our goal should not be one of use. Our goal is to get people down the path they want to go with the least effort possible. I'm not suggesting that there will be no 'interface'. I am suggesting that until we start thinking of the possibilities of working without one, we'll never begin to uncover new dimensions....as professionals we tend to overfocus on the digital world -- when the greatest potential of our craft goes underused in service design. Moreso in this space than in others the term 'user' is irrelevant....to TRULY represent the focus of the individual we have to make them the FOCUS -- the starting point of reference. Linguistically then, they 'use' a product, but they do so on a path in which the use of the 'thing' is subjected to their goal. The title associated to the individual should be one that reflects their goal, not their relationship to the 'thing' (which makes the 'thing' the center of focus)."

Today I also found a quote that illustrates this from another perspective: "We don't just use technology, they point out; we live with it." [source: Amazon review of book "Technology as Experience"]