5 ms·

That is is even a question shows how broken this entire field is, and is everything I hate about modern software development. It really should not be the goal

by jrm4 5y ago

That is is even a question shows how broken this entire field is, and is everything I hate about modern software development. It really should not be the goal of "design" to try to create "one experience fits all," because when you do that you create the lowest common denominator, the dumbest experience possible. If you care at all about allowing grownups to do grownup things with their software; if you care that people should be allowed to push themselves to their own technical and mental limits in order to get things done in a good way for them at all, then yes, you need to allow for things like "settings."

overgard 5y ago
One thing that always frustrates me is that most "redesigns" end up removing useful settings, or hiding them. Hiding complexity doesn't make software less complex to use, it just makes it harder to find what you're looking for.
- zepolen 5y ago
  Sure but think about if a particular setting is used by 0.1% of the user base but takes up 5% of the real estate and confuses the 99.9% of users that have no idea what it is and no intention of ever using it.
  - Underphil 5y ago
    But that 0.1% may actually need that setting for the product to work for them. By all means hide the settings, but don't remove them entirely. A lot of evidence seems to support advanced users having a proclivity toward tweaking, so something like about:config in the browser seems to work fine (as an example).
  - SrslyJosh 5y ago
    Here's what you said, minus the arbitrary numbers: > Sure but think about if a particular setting is used by a minority of the user base but takes up some of the real estate and confuses the majority of users that have no idea what it is and no intention of ever using it. Now that we've removed the arbitrary numbers... ;-) If the way setting is presented is confusing, then that is the problem that needs to be fixed. Remove the confusion, maybe make it less prominent in the UI, but taking away the setting doesn't actually solve the problem, it just breaks the product for the users who need it.
    - zepolen 5y ago
      No, the numbers do matter, your modification doesn't. > Sure but think about if a particular setting is used by a 49.9% of the user base but takes up 0.01% of the real estate and confuses 50.1% of users that have no idea what it is and no intention of ever using it. ;-)
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        > No, the numbers do matter, your modification doesn't. No they don't and yes it does. The solution to your new contrived-numbers problem is the same as the GP's to the cleaned-up numberless one: Fix the actual problem in stead of focusing on meaningless made-up numbers.
        zepolen 5y ago
        The problem is that some idiots think that 50.00001% is the same as 99.99999%, there's no fixing that.
  - xg15 5y ago
    In addition to the other posts, you also don't know it's really 0.1%. Users may have disabled telemetry - and often, those are specifically the power users that are making the most use of customisation. > but takes up 5% of the real estate How would you even manage to do that? Menus are a thing. A setting might as well be hidden in a dialog somewhere if it's reasonably clear how do get to it (e.g. through a well thought-out menu or dialog structure). Not everything has to be explained through random popup messages that show up at the worst possible time.
  - BeFlatXIII 5y ago
    It turns out you’re in the 0.1% of users and do not care at all about the 99.9%. Now what?
  - kbelder 5y ago
    Everybody is in some 0.1% slice or another.
notreallyserio 5y ago
Imagine if you couldn't change your ringtone or mute notifications or switch your phone to vibrate. That's what the anti-settings people want to force on you, even if they won't come out and admit it.
loceng 5y ago
It's a battle of optimization to cater to the largest audience, so your market share is larger, so economies of scale work better and they earn higher profit - and arguably at lower design cost as well. Arguably until users are willing to fund good R&D - and there aren't other unreasonable pressures on the production, and that design isn't perverted by designing to optimize for ad revenues and to capture engagement of a person to unhealthy levels, then it's going to continue to be the status quo.
- jrm4 5y ago
  And to pull the camera back; all those big money words you just used are in no way necessary for people to have a good experience, because software can be free and open. Obviously, we are well past the naive idea of "just making everything FOSS and all will be perfect," but hey, if I'm not the one making money, then from my user point of view, I will be cheering and helping on the "less money" or perhaps even "no money" projects that are threatening to eat your business model.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > Obviously, we are well past the naive idea of "just making everything FOSS and all will be perfect," Yup, obviously, since the no-settings dictatorship mindset has crept into FOSS too.
cortesoft 5y ago
It also assumes that everyone wants to do the exact same thing with your software. Sometimes people want to do different things.
xg15 5y ago
Also reminds me of the old story about the Air Force discovering that you cannot design a single seat for all pilots: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11230287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11230287 Seems to me we're regressing to the view they had before this story: "If I just had more data, I could find out the real seat dimensions that will fit everyone! Then I can finally do away with all those pesky knobs and levers!"

by jrm4 5y ago

overgard 5y ago

One thing that always frustrates me is that most "redesigns" end up removing useful settings, or hiding them. Hiding complexity doesn't make software less complex to use, it just makes it harder to find what you're looking for.

zepolen 5y ago
Sure but think about if a particular setting is used by 0.1% of the user base but takes up 5% of the real estate and confuses the 99.9% of users that have no idea what it is and no intention of ever using it.
- Underphil 5y ago
  But that 0.1% may actually need that setting for the product to work for them. By all means hide the settings, but don't remove them entirely. A lot of evidence seems to support advanced users having a proclivity toward tweaking, so something like about:config in the browser seems to work fine (as an example).
- SrslyJosh 5y ago
  Here's what you said, minus the arbitrary numbers: > Sure but think about if a particular setting is used by a minority of the user base but takes up some of the real estate and confuses the majority of users that have no idea what it is and no intention of ever using it. Now that we've removed the arbitrary numbers... ;-) If the way setting is presented is confusing, then that is the problem that needs to be fixed. Remove the confusion, maybe make it less prominent in the UI, but taking away the setting doesn't actually solve the problem, it just breaks the product for the users who need it.
  - zepolen 5y ago
    No, the numbers do matter, your modification doesn't. > Sure but think about if a particular setting is used by a 49.9% of the user base but takes up 0.01% of the real estate and confuses 50.1% of users that have no idea what it is and no intention of ever using it. ;-)
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > No, the numbers do matter, your modification doesn't. No they don't and yes it does. The solution to your new contrived-numbers problem is the same as the GP's to the cleaned-up numberless one: Fix the actual problem in stead of focusing on meaningless made-up numbers.
      - zepolen 5y ago
        The problem is that some idiots think that 50.00001% is the same as 99.99999%, there's no fixing that.
- xg15 5y ago
  In addition to the other posts, you also don't know it's really 0.1%. Users may have disabled telemetry - and often, those are specifically the power users that are making the most use of customisation. > but takes up 5% of the real estate How would you even manage to do that? Menus are a thing. A setting might as well be hidden in a dialog somewhere if it's reasonably clear how do get to it (e.g. through a well thought-out menu or dialog structure). Not everything has to be explained through random popup messages that show up at the worst possible time.
- BeFlatXIII 5y ago
  It turns out you’re in the 0.1% of users and do not care at all about the 99.9%. Now what?
- kbelder 5y ago
  Everybody is in some 0.1% slice or another.

notreallyserio 5y ago

Imagine if you couldn't change your ringtone or mute notifications or switch your phone to vibrate. That's what the anti-settings people want to force on you, even if they won't come out and admit it.

loceng 5y ago

It's a battle of optimization to cater to the largest audience, so your market share is larger, so economies of scale work better and they earn higher profit - and arguably at lower design cost as well. Arguably until users are willing to fund good R&D - and there aren't other unreasonable pressures on the production, and that design isn't perverted by designing to optimize for ad revenues and to capture engagement of a person to unhealthy levels, then it's going to continue to be the status quo.

jrm4 5y ago
And to pull the camera back; all those big money words you just used are in no way necessary for people to have a good experience, because software can be free and open. Obviously, we are well past the naive idea of "just making everything FOSS and all will be perfect," but hey, if I'm not the one making money, then from my user point of view, I will be cheering and helping on the "less money" or perhaps even "no money" projects that are threatening to eat your business model.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > Obviously, we are well past the naive idea of "just making everything FOSS and all will be perfect," Yup, obviously, since the no-settings dictatorship mindset has crept into FOSS too.

cortesoft 5y ago

It also assumes that everyone wants to do the exact same thing with your software. Sometimes people want to do different things.

xg15 5y ago

Also reminds me of the old story about the Air Force discovering that you cannot design a single seat for all pilots: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11230287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11230287 Seems to me we're regressing to the view they had before this story: "If I just had more data, I could find out the real seat dimensions that will fit everyone! Then I can finally do away with all those pesky knobs and levers!"