[1] This usage implies a lack of computer savviness, asserting that problems arising when using a device are the fault of the user.
Critics of the term argue that many problems are caused instead by poor product designs that fail to anticipate the capabilities and needs of the user.
He suggests compensating for this when building usable systems, thus allowing a higher percentage of users to complete tasks without errors: For example, suppose the goal of your program is to allow people to convert digital camera photos into a web photo album.
Now, even without going through with this experiment, I can state with some confidence that some of the users will simply fail to complete the task, or will take an extraordinary amount of time doing it.
Bruce "Tog" Tognazzini describes an anecdote of Dilbert creator Scott Adams losing a significant amount of work of comment moderation at his blog due to a poorly constructed application that conveyed a wrong mental model, even though the user took explicit care to preserve the data.
[4] Jef Raskin advocated designing devices in ways that prevent erroneous actions.
In 2006, Intel began running a number of PEBCAK web-based advertisements[11] to promote its vPro platform.
[13] In United States Navy and Army slang, the term has a similar meaning, though it is pronounced differently: In Danish it is called a Fejl 40, or 'error 40', indicating that the error was 40 centimetres (16 in) from the device.
In German it is called a DAU (dümmster anzunehmender User), literally translated as 'dumbest assumed user', referring to the common engineering acronym GAU (größter anzunehmender Unfall), for a maximum credible accident, or worst-case scenario.
The computing jargon refers to "wetware bugs" as the user is considered part of the system, in a hardware/software/wetware layering.
[17] "(It's a) carbon based error", indicates a user problem (humans are a carbon-based life-form), as opposed to a silicon-based one.