4 ms·

> The underlying technology of git is great, but the UX is terrible. I think it really comes down to a difference in philosophy in terms of learning how to use

by u801e 6y ago

> The underlying technology of git is great, but the UX is terrible. I think it really comes down to a difference in philosophy in terms of learning how to use tools. In the past, one had to read the documentation to figure out how to use a tool. So, for instance, running git --help or git branch --help would give the information needed. Now having a what's considered an intuitive interface is expected, which is why many people have problems using tools where the documentation is there, but people don't want to take the time to read it.

atoav 6y ago
I get what you are saying, and this makes sense, if you are in a situation where the problem your tool solves is so special and the target audience of your tool so involved that it makes sense to do things differently than the rest of the world. This is rarely the case. Sometimes at the end you get nothing but a wet handshake. Think about vim: it is cryptic, does everything different than everything else out there , but it gives you something in return. If you make your tool less inutive, but give users nothing in return, you are doing it wrong. If the interface of your tool does it one way in this corner and another way in that corner — so if you are inconsistent without good reason — you are doing it wrong. Interfaces are about clear communication. Interfaces are the difference between a rugged 50k$ Arri Alexa cinema camera and a 200$ camcorder: the more Alexa has physical buttons and knobs for important things precisely in the locations where they should be, precisely behaving in the way they are expected. The cheap camcorder has buttons, encoders and levers sprinkled over it seemingly random. The interface of a tool is good when it can be used intuitively even under stress, in bad weather and on drugs. This is ehat we all should aim for imo: tools that are more powerful/expressive AND more intuitive at the same time. I like reading manuals, but not for things that could have been totally obvious if somebody spent a split second thinking about how to communicate it clearly.
- u801e 6y ago
  > Think about vim: it is cryptic, does everything different than everything else out there , but it gives you something in return. The same could be said about git. For example, branching and merging is far better with it compared to previous VCS systems like SVN or CVS. And, like git, one had to read the documentation of those systems to have a good understanding about how to use them. > I like reading manuals, but not for things that could have been totally obvious if somebody spent a split second thinking about how to communicate it clearly. But should everything be totally obvious? For example, I doubt someone who hasn't read the documentation at some point could write a simple hello world program in most programming languages without making an error.

by u801e 6y ago

atoav 6y ago

I get what you are saying, and this makes sense, if you are in a situation where the problem your tool solves is so special and the target audience of your tool so involved that it makes sense to do things differently than the rest of the world. This is rarely the case. Sometimes at the end you get nothing but a wet handshake. Think about vim: it is cryptic, does everything different than everything else out there , but it gives you something in return. If you make your tool less inutive, but give users nothing in return, you are doing it wrong. If the interface of your tool does it one way in this corner and another way in that corner — so if you are inconsistent without good reason — you are doing it wrong. Interfaces are about clear communication. Interfaces are the difference between a rugged 50k$ Arri Alexa cinema camera and a 200$ camcorder: the more Alexa has physical buttons and knobs for important things precisely in the locations where they should be, precisely behaving in the way they are expected. The cheap camcorder has buttons, encoders and levers sprinkled over it seemingly random. The interface of a tool is good when it can be used intuitively even under stress, in bad weather and on drugs. This is ehat we all should aim for imo: tools that are more powerful/expressive AND more intuitive at the same time. I like reading manuals, but not for things that could have been totally obvious if somebody spent a split second thinking about how to communicate it clearly.

u801e 6y ago
> Think about vim: it is cryptic, does everything different than everything else out there , but it gives you something in return. The same could be said about git. For example, branching and merging is far better with it compared to previous VCS systems like SVN or CVS. And, like git, one had to read the documentation of those systems to have a good understanding about how to use them. > I like reading manuals, but not for things that could have been totally obvious if somebody spent a split second thinking about how to communicate it clearly. But should everything be totally obvious? For example, I doubt someone who hasn't read the documentation at some point could write a simple hello world program in most programming languages without making an error.