3 ms·

This is a perennial problem in aviation. One of my favorite examples relates to flaws in our assumptions about anthropometrics: https://www.thestar.com/news/ins

• moring 6y ago
  While that article shows how too little configuration towards the individual user leads to problems, there is a balance to find. In the software world, we are often facing the opposite problem: Being overwhelmed by too many configuration parameters, ironically leading to the same outcome because the user is unable to configure the system at all. This is especially frustrating when many of those parameters are not even adjusting the software to the individual but are arbitrary free parameters like "in which folder do you want the software to place its internal data files", or are about adjusting one piece of software to another so they work together -- problems that should be solved by the manufacturer without needing user input. On an orthogonal note, I smiled when I read this paragraph about excuses from the manufacturers: > When airplane manufacturers first heard this new mandate, they balked, insisting it would be too expensive and take years to solve the relevant engineering problems. But the military refused to budge, and then — to everyone’s surprise — aeronautical engineers rather quickly came up with solutions that were both cheap and easy to implement. They designed adjustable seats, technology now standard in all automobiles. They created adjustable foot pedals. They developed adjustable helmet straps and flight suits.