4 ms·
I disagree, there is a lot of functionality aimed to keep users safe, if "non-technical end-users" can't understand and go through them; they may be better leav
by xlayn 11y ago
I disagree, there is a lot of functionality aimed to keep users safe, if "non-technical end-users" can't understand and go through them; they may be better leaving them alone.
On the other hand also prevents those users from changing something and find non expected behavior.
- hackuser 11y ago> if "non-technical end-users" can't understand and go through them; they may be better leaving them alone. I understand this reasoning, but I think the pendulum has swung too far from end-user control to a patronizing attitude where we tell users what is good for them - in fact, we decide for them without even telling them. For example, in this case perhaps some users value confidentiality over system integrity or over performance; Mozilla doesn't empower them to make that decision; the users don't even know that a decision has been made. Mozilla could facillitate end-user control by making the options safe and by explaining them clearly. There is a balance of course, and I'm just using this issue as a example - it's hardly the most critical.
- chc 11y agoTurning Firefox into Config Simulator 2016 would just alienate nontechnical users, not empower them. I don't see how it's patronizing to say, "You can set this the way you want if you care, and people who don't care aren't faced with a bunch of choices they don't want."
- firasd 11y agoInteresting historical context: When Firefox split off from the old Mozilla browser, the whole Firefox (then called Phoenix) project removed a lot of menus and buttons.