> Options are a cop out. It’s the designer’s job to figure out the best way to use the product, and delegating that choice to the user is pure laziness. Hive on

> Options are a cop out. It’s the designer’s job to figure out the best way to use the product, and delegating that choice to the user is pure laziness. Hive only resorts to options as a last resort. I think if you are building a simple tool to solve a simple problem, this makes sense. On the other hand, I think this gets abused in the other direction: by designers using this as an excuse to not think about flexibility, or engage in humility. It's like the misuse of premature optimsation, but for designers. For example, I think it's instructive that almost[1] none of the popular pro tools in any industry follow this guideline. Those tools are not for easing users in, they are for getting shit done: they understand that the idea that some UX designer can come along and tell the entire photography world how to process raw files, or tell developers how to build software in N different languages, or what a film editor's process should be for making movies etc, is utter druff. This is why, as I understand it, the film industry reacted to strongly and negatively to Final Cut X: Apple were saying "we don't care what your current process is, you must now edit films this way, in this order, using this process, because we know better". [1] I wanted to just say "none" here, but I obviously haven't used all pro tools