5 ms·

Shouldn't software (or anything else) be made optimal for the majority of people that will use it? With common apps like web-browsers, email, & chat, pushing ev

by bcook 11y ago

Shouldn't software (or anything else) be made optimal for the majority of people that will use it? With common apps like web-browsers, email, & chat, pushing everyone to become an advanced user is nonsense.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Somehow stoves, microwaves and machines live with complex interfaces and nobody complains. Cars are also a good example - it is expected of everyone to take a few dozen hours of driving lessons to familiarize themselves with the UI of the machine, and again, nobody complains. Creating the expectation that every program should be fully usable from the get-go is the problem, because the only way to achieve that is to remove its features to the point it barely does anything. Hell, nobody complains that Photoshop is complicated. It is expected of you to read some tutorials in order to use it effectively. I'm not saying the interface should be obtuse for a reason. But the current trend of sacrificing features to simplify the UI is simply dumb. Market-driven, yes, but just dumb. We could do much more with technology we have if not for it.
- EliRivers 11y ago
  I agree with your sentiment (a modern PC is a very complex beast and it's not reasonable to expect to be able to operate it without learning about it first), but my stove's interface could not be simpler. One turny knob. Turn it to pick the heat setting, from "OFF" to "LOTS". I don't think I've ever used a stove more complex than that.
  - dagw 11y ago
    I don't think I've ever used a stove more complex than that. Sure, but your stoves interface could in theory be made a lot better if your stove was more complex. Instead of having to chose an arbitrary value between OFF and LOTS you could dial in 85 degrees and have your stove guarantee that the liquid in the pot on that hotplate will never go above 85 degrees. While in one dimension it would make the implementation details of your stoves internals a lot more complex it would make the act of using your stove a lot more simple and save people from making some very common mistakes (ie choosing a slightly too high arbitrary number)

by bcook 11y ago

TeMPOraL 11y ago

Somehow stoves, microwaves and machines live with complex interfaces and nobody complains. Cars are also a good example - it is expected of everyone to take a few dozen hours of driving lessons to familiarize themselves with the UI of the machine, and again, nobody complains. Creating the expectation that every program should be fully usable from the get-go is the problem, because the only way to achieve that is to remove its features to the point it barely does anything. Hell, nobody complains that Photoshop is complicated. It is expected of you to read some tutorials in order to use it effectively. I'm not saying the interface should be obtuse for a reason. But the current trend of sacrificing features to simplify the UI is simply dumb. Market-driven, yes, but just dumb. We could do much more with technology we have if not for it.

EliRivers 11y ago
I agree with your sentiment (a modern PC is a very complex beast and it's not reasonable to expect to be able to operate it without learning about it first), but my stove's interface could not be simpler. One turny knob. Turn it to pick the heat setting, from "OFF" to "LOTS". I don't think I've ever used a stove more complex than that.
- dagw 11y ago
  I don't think I've ever used a stove more complex than that. Sure, but your stoves interface could in theory be made a lot better if your stove was more complex. Instead of having to chose an arbitrary value between OFF and LOTS you could dial in 85 degrees and have your stove guarantee that the liquid in the pot on that hotplate will never go above 85 degrees. While in one dimension it would make the implementation details of your stoves internals a lot more complex it would make the act of using your stove a lot more simple and save people from making some very common mistakes (ie choosing a slightly too high arbitrary number)