3 ms·

I often hear this argument. It could be used to argue that comics are better than novels and overalls are better than regular clothes. Three year olds are three

I often hear this argument. It could be used to argue that comics are better than novels and overalls are better than regular clothes. Three year olds are three year olds - what is best for them is not necessarily best for adults.

ddingus 7y ago
Never said it was best. I agree with you. Still, it is an advance. More work overall remains to reach more optimal for more people more of the time.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Not necessarily, if it debilitates the majority of the user population (adults) - if it helps some people get more done, while making much more people get much less done.
  - ddingus 7y ago
    No, it's still a net gain. What you are talking about is a priority problem. That problem is applying the right UX to more people more of the time. That costs more than just doing one size fits all, and we should be paying those costs more, in my view.
  - ddingus 7y ago
    Also, in some cases, we can make investments to get productive on the new UX. I did that with Android. Have to be honest. I can fly on a reasonable Android phone. Apple, not so much. Didn't want to make two investments. Content create, communications, programming, social media, all aren't a burden today. Function set is limited, but it's not as big of a deal as it was prior to really working the UX, just like many of us did with the other paradigms. And I often just do not need a deeper set of features / flows too. Not saying it's better. It's not in my view. But, I am also saying, users can do better with it than they may think.