> The problem [...] is people What I would call number 1 of user experience: The human is never at fault. Systems are there FOR people and systems should be de

> The problem [...] is people What I would call number 1 of user experience: The human is never at fault. Systems are there FOR people and systems should be designed to cope with the flaws of humans. If your system can't handle normal users then you are at fault and you're just pointing fingers. > And likewise the problem with tagged data is likewise the people who can't organize tags Extremely many attributes (which IMO is a similar but much better model than tags) can be set automatically. Date and location (and people in them by using face recognition) for photos, artist, track title for music files. It's almost comical that document names almost never match up with their filenames. File endings are another extremely silly concept. > The classic analogy is you unleash genealogists on a village cemetery and have them produce a family tree and the output is actually useful information. Unleash the same team and ask them to digitally tag tombstones, and you just get a pile of useless, error filled data, packed with duplicates and weird capitalization issues. The attribute scheme seems to work out fine for Wikidata. Filesystems today also have adopted attributes but are fairly limited in using them. On OS X Photos and iTunes organize files through databases that connect files with attributes. On Linux when using Gnome you have Zeitgeist that automatically indexes all your files and keeps attributes on them, which is used for instance by the Gnome Music application. > You "could" write a noob gui for a nuclear reactor, or a UI for even newborn babies to use matches, but you probably shouldn't. The complete opposite: You actually need to put very much consideration into the user interfaces of critical systems to prevent mishandling. Chernobyl was partly caused by a bad UI.