3 ms·
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 op
by 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 agoOld 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 agoI 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.