3 ms·

This is done with a lot of features already: In practice, users click to authorize it, and then do not understand why their computers do scary things. Just putt

This is done with a lot of features already: In practice, users click to authorize it, and then do not understand why their computers do scary things. Just putting stuff behind yet another permission prompt users do not understand is not an acceptable position. I really feel a lot of people in Silicon Valley have not ever just sat back and watched a non-technical user use a computer: The state of the industry is woefully disconnected from actual user experience. I beseech anyone who thinks a permission prompt solves a problem, rather than creating one, to go to a senior living community, and just watch people use computers.

Shared404 5y ago
> go to a senior living community, and just watch people use computers. Experiences like this make me wish there were chromebook like machines that didn't spy on users, because that's really the only ethical solution. Non-technical users can have the locked down machines, with a way to opt in to a higher degree of access possibly, and power users can get the full machines. I know this sounds elitist of me, but this is the only way I honestly see everyone getting what they want.
saurik 5y ago
The problem is that it isn't out place to decide that people simply aren't allowed to do something because they are too stupid or senile to be even given the option to do something they might actively want... I appreciate the intent, but the result still feels morally reprehensible (and I will note that, if it had been applied to computers from the beginning, most of the cool stuff we use wouldn't exist).
- paxcoder 5y ago
  Old people are not too stupid/senile, they are simply inexperienced. An ideal UI/UX would be understandable even to them. Whether that is possible, I'm not sure. But you know know who else is inexperienced? Kids. And I would venture to guess there will be plenty of those once you are old. By then I would expect you to find different things "morally reprehensible"...
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  I think it's a big stretch to say leaving the ability for a website to vibrate your phone out of the web standard is "morally reprehensible". Nor am I suggesting users are too stupid or senile: They just care less about the plumbing than the plumbers do. The problem is when all your user experience studies grab folks from tech communities, you start to think people can or want to cope with your constantly evolving stack of features, when they probably just want to find out how to get to a restaurant that day.
captainmuon 5y ago
Having it without a prompt is also not a acceptable situation. I think HTML should be split in web sites, and applications. If a page wants to use the camera, or vibration, etc., it should take you to "Programs & Features" or the Apps settings and say: "This website XXX is a program, not a page. Do you want to install this program?" I would even consider make the list of "programs" visible at all times on the edge of the last start screen page, and limit it to 12 programs or so, in order to prevent people from installing all kinds of junk.
- exciteabletom 5y ago
  > I think HTML should be split in web sites, and applications. You have reinvented native apps

Shared404 5y ago

> go to a senior living community, and just watch people use computers. Experiences like this make me wish there were chromebook like machines that didn't spy on users, because that's really the only ethical solution. Non-technical users can have the locked down machines, with a way to opt in to a higher degree of access possibly, and power users can get the full machines. I know this sounds elitist of me, but this is the only way I honestly see everyone getting what they want.

saurik 5y ago

The problem is that it isn't out place to decide that people simply aren't allowed to do something because they are too stupid or senile to be even given the option to do something they might actively want... I appreciate the intent, but the result still feels morally reprehensible (and I will note that, if it had been applied to computers from the beginning, most of the cool stuff we use wouldn't exist).

paxcoder 5y ago
Old people are not too stupid/senile, they are simply inexperienced. An ideal UI/UX would be understandable even to them. Whether that is possible, I'm not sure. But you know know who else is inexperienced? Kids. And I would venture to guess there will be plenty of those once you are old. By then I would expect you to find different things "morally reprehensible"...
ocdtrekkie 5y ago
I think it's a big stretch to say leaving the ability for a website to vibrate your phone out of the web standard is "morally reprehensible". Nor am I suggesting users are too stupid or senile: They just care less about the plumbing than the plumbers do. The problem is when all your user experience studies grab folks from tech communities, you start to think people can or want to cope with your constantly evolving stack of features, when they probably just want to find out how to get to a restaurant that day.

captainmuon 5y ago

Having it without a prompt is also not a acceptable situation. I think HTML should be split in web sites, and applications. If a page wants to use the camera, or vibration, etc., it should take you to "Programs & Features" or the Apps settings and say: "This website XXX is a program, not a page. Do you want to install this program?" I would even consider make the list of "programs" visible at all times on the edge of the last start screen page, and limit it to 12 programs or so, in order to prevent people from installing all kinds of junk.

exciteabletom 5y ago
> I think HTML should be split in web sites, and applications. You have reinvented native apps