Re: User-friendly -- NOT!

[Loren Castro <lfc -at- SOL -dot- CHINALAKE -dot- NAVY -dot- MIL>]

> Beverly Parks asked about the use of "user friendly" which she
> believes to be passe.  I agree.  Like many terms that started
> out well, it has become an old, tired, and abused shaddow of
> its formerly robust self.  In other words, it no longer means
> much.

> I've been assiduously replacing it in our documentation at every
> opportunity with terms such as the following:

> - enhanced
> - powerful
> - easy-to-use
> - multi-functional
> - comprehensive

> If anyone on this list has more synonyms of this sort to share,
> I'd appreciate hearing about them.


> Live long & prosper,
> Mike LaTorra



In the case of MS products, "user friendly" never did mean anything.

How about "systematized," "prioritized," "categorized," "responsive,"
"compatible," "robust," "authenticated," "integrated," "consolidated,"
"coordinated," "flexible," "adaptable," "reliable," "WYSIWYG," "total,"
"totally," and "totality"?

lfc [in total agreement with Sturgeon  ;-) ]