7 ms·

The mistake you are making is that you are trying to answer the question of what the average user wants by looking at what you want. Developers are not represen

by ppod 7y ago

The mistake you are making is that you are trying to answer the question of what the average user wants by looking at what you want. Developers are not representative of users.

dotancohen 7y ago
A faster horse. People value privacy when made aware of the issue, but very few people are aware of how websites track (and manipulate) them.
- UncleMeat 7y ago
  I feel like this claim needs support. All of the studies I'm aware of that ask people to choose between different price points based on privacy end up showing minimal valuing of privacy.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    GP's claims and the studies you mention are about two different things. GP claimed that users aren't generally aware of the extent their privacy is violated, and not that they would chose privacy over price if made aware.
  - kube-system 7y ago
    It is clear that many people know that many services they enjoy compromise their privacy. These stories have been covered by mainstream media ad nauseam. Jokes about privacy compromises are part of pop-culture at this point. Most people, however, are not enthusiasts or activists who are wholly invested in these topics. Even being aware of the issue, most act based on their immediate needs. Immediacy is an extremely important factor in decision-making. If we were to give this a utilitarian assessment formula: [severity of problem] * [immediacy of problem] <||> [importance of need] * [immediacy of need] Many people using social media to communicate with their family may evaluate that as: [100] * [1] < [100] * [100]
  - anoncake 7y ago
    There's a difference between valuing privacy and being willing to pay an extortion fee.
  - pnako 7y ago
    Did those studies gave the big picture about privacy? Why is it that people working in the field tend to be paranoid about privacy, and people outside are not? It can't be that we are just on average more paranoid. It's more likely that we know exactly how this data can be aggregated, stored forever, analysed in the future with capabilities that don't exist yet, etc. I think most people don't understand privacy in those terms.
  - chopin 7y ago
    Counterpoint: all purchasing sites I used so far are tracking me (or at least try to). I am tracked although I pay for the site. You have to factor in the fact that people know they are tracked whether they are paying or not. Given that fact I'd prefer not paying as well.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
That's a cop-out. Being a developer and a long-time computer user biases me, but also gives me a more informed perspective on what's productive and ergonomic, and what's distracting and annoying. I can name the issues I see, instead of writing off the frustration as "this computer must have viruses" or "this is just how things have to be". Bloat because of inefficient design isn't delivering any value to regular people that a developer is oblivious to. It's just bad engineering. Similarly for distractions, abandoning all UI features provided by default for the sake of making a control have rounded corners, setting the proficiency ceiling so low that no user can improve their skill in using a product over time, etc.
- leesalminen 7y ago
  In my experience (years of talking IRL with thousands of users of my B2B SaaS product), there exists a large cohort of users that don't want to improve their computer skills. They want the software to make things as absolutely "user friendly" as possible. As an example, I tried standardizing on <input type="date" /> across our product (hundreds of fields). Within 24 hours we logged >1,000 tickets with users saying they disliked the change. They preferred the fancy datepicker because it let them see a full calendar and that enabled a more fluid conversation with the customer (like "next Wednesday"). Yes, Chrome does offer a calendar for this field type, but Safari for desktop does not (just off the top of my head). I'm a vim-writing, tmux-ing, bash-loving developer. If it were up to me, I'd do everything in the terminal and never open a browser. I recognize that the world doesn't revolve around me and my skills, interests and tastes. If a large cohort of my customers tell me they don't want to improve their computer skills and want a fancy UI, who am I to tell them they're wrong? They're paying me. They get what they want.
  - Endy 7y ago
    Then you have to make a choice - do you want to support pushing down the lowest common denominator? Or will you be a person of integrity, and take the most technically simple solutions to build a more powerful and fast tool? Greed and morality can't mix. I personally support morals.
dmos62 7y ago
I think there's a faulty premise in there somewhere. An architect or an engineer is not a candy salesman. A candy salesman really shouldn't have a say in what flavor, texture, sweetness, etc. is appropriate for any given client. However, the way the poster you're replying to sees this issue is not as a candy salesman; but, as a public engineer. There's a problem, like "what should web be", "how should web work", which is akin to "how to build a railway over this valley", "how to minimally disturb the ecosystem", etc. That's not a realm of likes and dislikes, but of practicality. One of the realities of today is that the average user is extremely distanced from the technicalities of Web, whether that's desirable or not. That puts a lot of burden on the informed and on the developers, which are often the same people. The few are obligated to make decisions for the many. Do you deliver a box-shadow, but increase technical debt? Do you migrate to a more energy efficient platform, but alienate some users? Do you broaden the scope of your system, in turn increasing system complexity, or do you delegate to a dedicated third-party system, having the user possibly learn to use that third-party system? It's a question of which compromise best serves the user. It shouldn't be a question of likes and dislikes. This is a complex situation rife with miscommunication, ignorance, conflict of interests, and inertia. Any simple solution, such as disregarding the opinions of developers, should be regarded with great suspicion.
rdiddly 7y ago
Many "average" users don't know what they want, don't even realize the options that are available to choose from (i.e. the different ways an app can be built), and/or will accept whatever is offered. Though it wasn't patently insulting, you have gone ad hominem - "to the man" - rather than the idea. Whether one is a developer or not, doesn't have any bearing on whether economy and efficiency are worthwhile values in a computer application. Although it so happens that developers tend to also be users. If they ARE users, then they represent users. Also in the sense of acting as an advocate of sorts for the user, developers represent users. "Average" users having never been offered the thing being proposed here (faster and ad-free versions of the same apps, with the same network effects etc.), I don't see how you can state with any confidence that they wouldn't have chosen them, were they available.
addicted44 7y ago
The average user, by Google's own studies, wants a faster experience. By far. Is there any evidence that web apps of today are faster in achieving what equivalent non appy web pages of the past managed? Despite the fact that those older "apps" were running on computers which were orders of magnitude slower than our cell phones today. I've worked with 2 companies now where their users (and both these companies have users who pay 4 digit annual fees per user) have refused to migrate to the new Web 2.0 apps these companies have tried to foist on them. The difference in these cases is that the users, by virtue of paying, actually have a say and so have required the companies to provide parity with the older and newer applications, and usage continues to not just be higher, but grow faster on the older versions (despite having a larger base). Regular users have no such option. Google changes GMail, but its users still insist on using the older versions of the app, which is why they provide HTML mode, etc. However, it's users do not pay Google, and are forced to go with whatever Google wants to do, which is constantly hiding the older version and making it progressively worse to use. It's not evident to me at all that regular users "want" to use these new web 2.0 apps, as much as they don't have a choice.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  Yes and no: Ajax allows interactive (snappier/faster) behavior in most cases, especially for complex interaction flows. Using the minimal html Gmail interface vs the modern one, the modern one is quicker for complex interactions because I end up loading fewer pages,even if the average load is more expensive.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    It doesn't feel faster to me. And that's the case with Ajax in general - in principle, it can allow for snappier, faster experience. In practice, it rarely does.
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
      I just measured it: switching between "drafts" and "inbox" on the new gmail takes ~15 ms, while on the simple HTML view, it takes 3-500ms per load. Its literally 20 times faster, and importantly, cuts across the human visual perception boundary, which is at ~200ms. So the old HTML version is human perceptible, while the new version renders in ~1 frame.
zouhair 7y ago
It's ironic that Google got "lucky" because of its minimalistic approach back in the day. Now, it's just a huge mess.

by ppod 7y ago

The mistake you are making is that you are trying to answer the question of what the average user wants by looking at what you want. Developers are not representative of users.

dotancohen 7y ago

A faster horse. People value privacy when made aware of the issue, but very few people are aware of how websites track (and manipulate) them.

UncleMeat 7y ago
I feel like this claim needs support. All of the studies I'm aware of that ask people to choose between different price points based on privacy end up showing minimal valuing of privacy.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  GP's claims and the studies you mention are about two different things. GP claimed that users aren't generally aware of the extent their privacy is violated, and not that they would chose privacy over price if made aware.
- kube-system 7y ago
  It is clear that many people know that many services they enjoy compromise their privacy. These stories have been covered by mainstream media ad nauseam. Jokes about privacy compromises are part of pop-culture at this point. Most people, however, are not enthusiasts or activists who are wholly invested in these topics. Even being aware of the issue, most act based on their immediate needs. Immediacy is an extremely important factor in decision-making. If we were to give this a utilitarian assessment formula: [severity of problem] * [immediacy of problem] <||> [importance of need] * [immediacy of need] Many people using social media to communicate with their family may evaluate that as: [100] * [1] < [100] * [100]
- anoncake 7y ago
  There's a difference between valuing privacy and being willing to pay an extortion fee.
- pnako 7y ago
  Did those studies gave the big picture about privacy? Why is it that people working in the field tend to be paranoid about privacy, and people outside are not? It can't be that we are just on average more paranoid. It's more likely that we know exactly how this data can be aggregated, stored forever, analysed in the future with capabilities that don't exist yet, etc. I think most people don't understand privacy in those terms.
- chopin 7y ago
  Counterpoint: all purchasing sites I used so far are tracking me (or at least try to). I am tracked although I pay for the site. You have to factor in the fact that people know they are tracked whether they are paying or not. Given that fact I'd prefer not paying as well.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

That's a cop-out. Being a developer and a long-time computer user biases me, but also gives me a more informed perspective on what's productive and ergonomic, and what's distracting and annoying. I can name the issues I see, instead of writing off the frustration as "this computer must have viruses" or "this is just how things have to be". Bloat because of inefficient design isn't delivering any value to regular people that a developer is oblivious to. It's just bad engineering. Similarly for distractions, abandoning all UI features provided by default for the sake of making a control have rounded corners, setting the proficiency ceiling so low that no user can improve their skill in using a product over time, etc.

leesalminen 7y ago
In my experience (years of talking IRL with thousands of users of my B2B SaaS product), there exists a large cohort of users that don't want to improve their computer skills. They want the software to make things as absolutely "user friendly" as possible. As an example, I tried standardizing on <input type="date" /> across our product (hundreds of fields). Within 24 hours we logged >1,000 tickets with users saying they disliked the change. They preferred the fancy datepicker because it let them see a full calendar and that enabled a more fluid conversation with the customer (like "next Wednesday"). Yes, Chrome does offer a calendar for this field type, but Safari for desktop does not (just off the top of my head). I'm a vim-writing, tmux-ing, bash-loving developer. If it were up to me, I'd do everything in the terminal and never open a browser. I recognize that the world doesn't revolve around me and my skills, interests and tastes. If a large cohort of my customers tell me they don't want to improve their computer skills and want a fancy UI, who am I to tell them they're wrong? They're paying me. They get what they want.
- Endy 7y ago
  Then you have to make a choice - do you want to support pushing down the lowest common denominator? Or will you be a person of integrity, and take the most technically simple solutions to build a more powerful and fast tool? Greed and morality can't mix. I personally support morals.

dmos62 7y ago

I think there's a faulty premise in there somewhere. An architect or an engineer is not a candy salesman. A candy salesman really shouldn't have a say in what flavor, texture, sweetness, etc. is appropriate for any given client. However, the way the poster you're replying to sees this issue is not as a candy salesman; but, as a public engineer. There's a problem, like "what should web be", "how should web work", which is akin to "how to build a railway over this valley", "how to minimally disturb the ecosystem", etc. That's not a realm of likes and dislikes, but of practicality. One of the realities of today is that the average user is extremely distanced from the technicalities of Web, whether that's desirable or not. That puts a lot of burden on the informed and on the developers, which are often the same people. The few are obligated to make decisions for the many. Do you deliver a box-shadow, but increase technical debt? Do you migrate to a more energy efficient platform, but alienate some users? Do you broaden the scope of your system, in turn increasing system complexity, or do you delegate to a dedicated third-party system, having the user possibly learn to use that third-party system? It's a question of which compromise best serves the user. It shouldn't be a question of likes and dislikes. This is a complex situation rife with miscommunication, ignorance, conflict of interests, and inertia. Any simple solution, such as disregarding the opinions of developers, should be regarded with great suspicion.

rdiddly 7y ago

Many "average" users don't know what they want, don't even realize the options that are available to choose from (i.e. the different ways an app can be built), and/or will accept whatever is offered. Though it wasn't patently insulting, you have gone ad hominem - "to the man" - rather than the idea. Whether one is a developer or not, doesn't have any bearing on whether economy and efficiency are worthwhile values in a computer application. Although it so happens that developers tend to also be users. If they ARE users, then they represent users. Also in the sense of acting as an advocate of sorts for the user, developers represent users. "Average" users having never been offered the thing being proposed here (faster and ad-free versions of the same apps, with the same network effects etc.), I don't see how you can state with any confidence that they wouldn't have chosen them, were they available.

addicted44 7y ago

The average user, by Google's own studies, wants a faster experience. By far. Is there any evidence that web apps of today are faster in achieving what equivalent non appy web pages of the past managed? Despite the fact that those older "apps" were running on computers which were orders of magnitude slower than our cell phones today. I've worked with 2 companies now where their users (and both these companies have users who pay 4 digit annual fees per user) have refused to migrate to the new Web 2.0 apps these companies have tried to foist on them. The difference in these cases is that the users, by virtue of paying, actually have a say and so have required the companies to provide parity with the older and newer applications, and usage continues to not just be higher, but grow faster on the older versions (despite having a larger base). Regular users have no such option. Google changes GMail, but its users still insist on using the older versions of the app, which is why they provide HTML mode, etc. However, it's users do not pay Google, and are forced to go with whatever Google wants to do, which is constantly hiding the older version and making it progressively worse to use. It's not evident to me at all that regular users "want" to use these new web 2.0 apps, as much as they don't have a choice.

joshuamorton 7y ago
Yes and no: Ajax allows interactive (snappier/faster) behavior in most cases, especially for complex interaction flows. Using the minimal html Gmail interface vs the modern one, the modern one is quicker for complex interactions because I end up loading fewer pages,even if the average load is more expensive.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  It doesn't feel faster to me. And that's the case with Ajax in general - in principle, it can allow for snappier, faster experience. In practice, it rarely does.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    I just measured it: switching between "drafts" and "inbox" on the new gmail takes ~15 ms, while on the simple HTML view, it takes 3-500ms per load. Its literally 20 times faster, and importantly, cuts across the human visual perception boundary, which is at ~200ms. So the old HTML version is human perceptible, while the new version renders in ~1 frame.

zouhair 7y ago

It's ironic that Google got "lucky" because of its minimalistic approach back in the day. Now, it's just a huge mess.