4 ms·
after the initial update See, there’s your problem. Wait, how? The decision to ship the watch in an inoperable state is coercive. optional? Still, thi
by ignobleParting 9y ago
after the initial update
See, there’s your problem.
Wait, how?
The decision to ship the watch in an inoperable state is coercive.
optional?
Still, this is a dark pattern. Forcing the conversation represents an inductive stance. Going in blind, the user has to judge whether they should yes-to-death (at their own risk) a lengthy sequence of interview questions, to explore further, or attempt to reject the possibly optional activities, and feel the tug of a leash later on. The preferred behavior is obvious. Do you defy the preference? What ramifications will that have?
Unboxing it, you find there are strings attached, puppeting your actions.
- wvenable 9y ago> The decision to ship the watch in an inoperable state is coercive. Actually it's merely practical; the OS ships with a known save OS that's capable of booting up and connecting to Bluetooth to get an update. It's also the OS that it reverts to if it gets stuck in a boot loop. It's a perfectly reasonable engineering choice.
- ignobleParting 9y agoNo, it’s pretty unreasonable, and obviously a business decision.
- wvenable 9y agoGot any facts?
- ignobleParting 9y agoYour opinion regarding the descriptive qualifier of this problem as an “engineering” problem, thus special (a no-true-scotsman) and exempt from all other requirements certainly isn’t based on facts. You first. But hey, choices are choices. Feel free to make as many bad decisions as you like. How many replies have I put forward? How many obstinate retorts are there? Read them all and listen or don’t.