4 ms·
>What makes such a realization interesting is that if you don't need the "friendly user interaction", say you're making a POS system or some embedded device, yo
by tonyedgecombe 5y ago
>What makes such a realization interesting is that if you don't need the "friendly user interaction", say you're making a POS system or some embedded device, you don't need all that extra complexity.
Why would a POS system not require a friendly user interface.
This attitude towards users is why corporate software stinks so much, it's based on the idea that the developers have a captive audience so have no choice in the matter, they should just accept what they are given and stop complaining.
- pc86 5y agoThere's a difference between a "friendly user interface" (which is pretty clearly referring to the earliest points about design-heavy skeuomorphic icons and complex window management functionality) and a friendly, e.g. accessible and functional, user interface. A POS system doesn't need window management, it doesn't need skeuomorphic design, and I'm sure there three or four dozen other features that come along with a full-blown Windows installation that are irrelevant to a functional, usable POS system.
- delusional 5y agoThe running example in my comment was overlapping windows. a POS system might not need windows, much less arbitrary overlapping ones. That was the specific "friendly user interaction" i was talking about. I think you're taking me a bit out of context in order to talk about something you care about. I agree with you, so please don't hold me up as something I'm not.