3 ms·

> Have you ever dealt with support tickets or read "normal" user forums for a consumer product that you work on? PEBKAC is often times a kind way to describe th

by ardy42 6y ago

> Have you ever dealt with support tickets or read "normal" user forums for a consumer product that you work on? PEBKAC is often times a kind way to describe the problem. I totally understand that, but I think it's far less justifiable to design non-safety-critical systems for a brainless lowest common denominator user than it is for things that are arguably safety-critical (like the dosing mentioned in the GGP), because then you end up with something like a world where the only books available (even to adults) are children's books.

vlovich123 6y ago
Users also want free support. The more knobs you add the more complex your support becomes (both front line and automated tests) and your support costs skyrocket (now 1% of your users are turning on knobs you haven’t tested and those are 30% of your support costs). There’s a balance to be struck for sure and OSS can some times try to ignore the support cost because it’s just “spare time”. There’s still a cost though. There’s also something to be said for sensible abstractions. Even if the power users don’t have the control they want, the solution works for 90% of all other users. For an example of this look to Apple. They regularly sacrifice the power users for the security and convenience of the general customer. From a profit, support and just pure “% of satisfied users” that’s the right balance. Don’t get me wrong. They don’t get it right for every single little thing, but in aggregate when there’s a conflict and your market is the “general” user, trying to stay appealing to the power users is still likely the wrong choice.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > There’s also something to be said for sensible abstractions. Even if the power users don’t have the control they want, the solution works for 90% of all other users. There's something to be said for writing some things in some kind of Simple English [1], but it's quite different to take the position that most things should be written in it. Too often modern system designers seem to take something analogous to the latter position. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_English

by ardy42 6y ago

vlovich123 6y ago

Users also want free support. The more knobs you add the more complex your support becomes (both front line and automated tests) and your support costs skyrocket (now 1% of your users are turning on knobs you haven’t tested and those are 30% of your support costs). There’s a balance to be struck for sure and OSS can some times try to ignore the support cost because it’s just “spare time”. There’s still a cost though. There’s also something to be said for sensible abstractions. Even if the power users don’t have the control they want, the solution works for 90% of all other users. For an example of this look to Apple. They regularly sacrifice the power users for the security and convenience of the general customer. From a profit, support and just pure “% of satisfied users” that’s the right balance. Don’t get me wrong. They don’t get it right for every single little thing, but in aggregate when there’s a conflict and your market is the “general” user, trying to stay appealing to the power users is still likely the wrong choice.

ardy42 6y ago
> There’s also something to be said for sensible abstractions. Even if the power users don’t have the control they want, the solution works for 90% of all other users. There's something to be said for writing some things in some kind of Simple English [1], but it's quite different to take the position that most things should be written in it. Too often modern system designers seem to take something analogous to the latter position. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_English