3 ms·

> How can we say simultaneously that "computers are the future" and also accept a situation where the majority of people are just assumed to be technically inco

by vageli 6y ago

> How can we say simultaneously that "computers are the future" and also accept a situation where the majority of people are just assumed to be technically incompetent and incapable of learning? This succinctly captures the issue, though. Users don't want to read the manual, they want to use the appliance. They don't want to learn the idiosyncrasies of the device, they want to accomplish the task they had in mind. As someone who always reads the manual, I agree with you on principle but the reality is, fewer people care how things work and just want to get stuff done.

_qulr 6y ago
I'm not sure how this is relevant? Almost every product of every kind comes with a manual or instructions, which buyers are free to read or ignore, possibly with dangerous consequences for the latter. You can stick a metal pot in a microwave. You can pop open a pill bottle and swallow. That's just a fact of life in a free society.
- vageli 6y ago
  Going back to your minimization of support requests comment, if your mom is unable to delete a file (like when SIP is enabled) she won't make a superfluous support request as she was prevented from making the error. As computers continue to be used as appliances, we should expect similar controls over the device to be deployed to minimize the harm a user can cause. This in turn leads to loss of agency by the specialist. Most people can understand the failure modes associated with microwaving metal and such (or if not, it can be a relatively cheap or expensive lesson). But that underscores the commoditization I was pointing at. The dangers of general computing devices can't be captured in simple aphorisms like "don't leave it on with a vessel that lacks contents" for a stove or "don't put metal inside" for a microwave. The warnings that accompany a computer would comprise encyclopedic volumes to encapsulate all the things that could go wrong, like "don't install software from someone you don't know on a computer through which you access your banking." There are so many instance like that it's unbelievable. Few other devices are so interconnected to so many aspects of our lives. The general nature simply lacks the guardrails and controls of a special-purpose appliance. Put another way, can you imagine the reduction in request volume from your mother if she had a special device for reading the news, and another for banking, and another for shopping? This is the rationale. I don't agree with it but convenience seems to trump everything else.

by vageli 6y ago

_qulr 6y ago

I'm not sure how this is relevant? Almost every product of every kind comes with a manual or instructions, which buyers are free to read or ignore, possibly with dangerous consequences for the latter. You can stick a metal pot in a microwave. You can pop open a pill bottle and swallow. That's just a fact of life in a free society.

vageli 6y ago
Going back to your minimization of support requests comment, if your mom is unable to delete a file (like when SIP is enabled) she won't make a superfluous support request as she was prevented from making the error. As computers continue to be used as appliances, we should expect similar controls over the device to be deployed to minimize the harm a user can cause. This in turn leads to loss of agency by the specialist. Most people can understand the failure modes associated with microwaving metal and such (or if not, it can be a relatively cheap or expensive lesson). But that underscores the commoditization I was pointing at. The dangers of general computing devices can't be captured in simple aphorisms like "don't leave it on with a vessel that lacks contents" for a stove or "don't put metal inside" for a microwave. The warnings that accompany a computer would comprise encyclopedic volumes to encapsulate all the things that could go wrong, like "don't install software from someone you don't know on a computer through which you access your banking." There are so many instance like that it's unbelievable. Few other devices are so interconnected to so many aspects of our lives. The general nature simply lacks the guardrails and controls of a special-purpose appliance. Put another way, can you imagine the reduction in request volume from your mother if she had a special device for reading the news, and another for banking, and another for shopping? This is the rationale. I don't agree with it but convenience seems to trump everything else.