5 ms·

Isn't regulation precisely the act of acting in behalf of the citizens because they are seen as "too stupid" to know what they are doing?

by iqanq 5y ago

ZeroGravitas 5y ago
When talking about UX, there's this bad habit of using people's mothers or grandmothers as examples, because they are 'too stupid' to understand the UI that was built. Aside from the obvious problems, this also implicitly removes blame from the designer/implementor of the interface. I always prefer to reframe it as someone with a very important, intelligence requiring job, say vaccine reasearcher, who doesn't have time to deal with your shitty UI when they want to print a document. I feel the same applies here.
- iqonq 5y ago
  - mro_name 5y ago
    the car example again. There is a legal framework that has certain requirements. Enforced by a court here. These laws are from elected representatives of the people. So they are binding. Like it or not.
    - iqonq 5y ago
      Okay, and I made an argument of why I am against the law. That is all.
  - mro_name 5y ago
    and: many are forced to use the www if they like it or not. E.g. for tax or to get access to public services. So there's no excuse for hostility but it has to be legal and layperson-friendly.
  - jeltz 5y ago
    So you advocate a computer licence?
- mro_name 5y ago
  first I don't agree with coining any group as stupid per se. Second, if they are a target group, a website has no excuse but to deal with them.
mro_name 5y ago
no. They just can't care about everything themselves individually all the time. So penalising unwanted behaviour isn't about stupidity at all.
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
or too under-powered in relation to the powerful organizations that take advantage of them, or too overworked by all the tasks and details of their lives to deal adequately with all the things it might be beneficial for them to deal with, but are not strictly necessary for getting through the day.
watwut 5y ago
No. It is so that they don't have deal with developers tricks and misdirections and intentionally misleading uis and so on. It is also so that they are not required to learn tons of obscure and otherwise useless knowledge to function reasonably. None of that makes them stupid. Just like, when I am in grocery store I can be sure all food there is reasonably safe, even if I don't know anything about them. I am not expected to research them all personally for dangerous substances else "I am stupid for poisoning myself".

Isn't regulation precisely the act of acting in behalf of the citizens because they are seen as "too stupid" to know what they are doing?

by iqanq 5y ago

Isn't regulation precisely the act of acting in behalf of the citizens because they are seen as "too stupid" to know what they are doing?

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

When talking about UX, there's this bad habit of using people's mothers or grandmothers as examples, because they are 'too stupid' to understand the UI that was built. Aside from the obvious problems, this also implicitly removes blame from the designer/implementor of the interface. I always prefer to reframe it as someone with a very important, intelligence requiring job, say vaccine reasearcher, who doesn't have time to deal with your shitty UI when they want to print a document. I feel the same applies here.

iqonq 5y ago
- mro_name 5y ago
  the car example again. There is a legal framework that has certain requirements. Enforced by a court here. These laws are from elected representatives of the people. So they are binding. Like it or not.
  - iqonq 5y ago
    Okay, and I made an argument of why I am against the law. That is all.
- mro_name 5y ago
  and: many are forced to use the www if they like it or not. E.g. for tax or to get access to public services. So there's no excuse for hostility but it has to be legal and layperson-friendly.
- jeltz 5y ago
  So you advocate a computer licence?
mro_name 5y ago
first I don't agree with coining any group as stupid per se. Second, if they are a target group, a website has no excuse but to deal with them.

mro_name 5y ago

no. They just can't care about everything themselves individually all the time. So penalising unwanted behaviour isn't about stupidity at all.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

or too under-powered in relation to the powerful organizations that take advantage of them, or too overworked by all the tasks and details of their lives to deal adequately with all the things it might be beneficial for them to deal with, but are not strictly necessary for getting through the day.

watwut 5y ago

No. It is so that they don't have deal with developers tricks and misdirections and intentionally misleading uis and so on. It is also so that they are not required to learn tons of obscure and otherwise useless knowledge to function reasonably. None of that makes them stupid. Just like, when I am in grocery store I can be sure all food there is reasonably safe, even if I don't know anything about them. I am not expected to research them all personally for dangerous substances else "I am stupid for poisoning myself".