4 ms·
I think this is a good analogy for software. To the typical user, some software is easy and sensical, while other is obtuse and requires significant jiggering j
by IggleSniggle 6y ago
I think this is a good analogy for software. To the typical user, some software is easy and sensical, while other is obtuse and requires significant jiggering just to do the thing it was ostensibly designed to do.
- segfaultbuserr 6y agoThere is a difference, however. The connectors that require a lot of force for insertion and removal have some true advantages, they are usually the simplest, cheapest and generally reliable components. Almost nothing can go wrong with a simple wire terminal, it's just a piece of rectangular or round metal. Although it can be difficult to disconnect for servicing, but you're only expected to do that once per year. On the other hand, "easy" connectors are designed in a way that, instead of requiring the mating force necessary for a good contact , it's provided by the connector mechanism itself, and as a result, they're often more complex, expensive, or fragile, such as a USB connector or a ZIF socket. A software analogy for an "easy" connector would be, "fancy software with good user experience often has a lot of complexity hidden behind of scene, and can be fragile". But I'm not sure what would be the analogy for a cheap connector. Perhaps, a shell script?
- IggleSniggle 6y agoYes, a shell script, but for the sake of the discussion, you must imagine that to the average user, invoking a shell script is “the same” as navigating through a few settings menus and clicking some checkboxes they don’t understand: that is to say, when the UX is sufficiently lacking, users often enter “well I don’t really know what I’m doing just push through” mode.