4 ms·

Nicely written, many points are easy to agree with, and a light touch too. I always disliked the title of Steve Krug's book (even if I appreciate some of the d

Nicely written, many points are easy to agree with, and a light touch too. I always disliked the title of Steve Krug's book (even if I appreciate some of the design sentiments) because it seems to lionise intellectual sloth. To me the problem is actually deep and accords with the split between philosophies of Artificial Intelligence (AI), which is anti-humanist, deferential as (Ellul, Mumford, Postman) would frame it, and the more optimistic IA (Intelligence Amplification) which is _real_ human-centred design. There are also resonances with how Taplin tackles the Reckless Engineer as one who sweeps problems under the rug of UX in order to "move fast (and leave things to just break later)" This whole cargo-cult (cultivated ignorance) of truly celebrating "Not Thinking" is pathological. It is setting us all up for quite some disaster.

shadowgovt 5y ago
Problem is, if there are two offerings available, and one is simpler, users gravitate towards it. Remember when Twitter came along? Facebook already existed.
sjamaan 5y ago
Not having to think about how to use a certain tool or software application means you free up time to think about more important matters. It's not about not thinking, it's about not needing to think about needless trivialities. Also, in some cases, you might be in a hurry or an emergency and your brain isn't thinking right. In those situations, an interface that requires one to think might result in dangerous accidents.
- p_l 5y ago
  Thing is, sometimes the interface should make you think - when you're not yet trained on it and the purpose is inherently complex. HOTAS in aviation might be a case of "don't make me think", but it is built on hundreds of hours training your body till it understands the movements of controls intimately enough. Similarly a well trained operator on "clunky", "ancient" Mainframe system can handle for example your airline booking with great finesse and speed, and similarly with Bank tellers - meanwhile "intuitive" interface often ends up with people mousing and mousing and mousing to hit the right menu

shadowgovt 5y ago

Problem is, if there are two offerings available, and one is simpler, users gravitate towards it. Remember when Twitter came along? Facebook already existed.

sjamaan 5y ago

Not having to think about how to use a certain tool or software application means you free up time to think about more important matters. It's not about not thinking, it's about not needing to think about needless trivialities. Also, in some cases, you might be in a hurry or an emergency and your brain isn't thinking right. In those situations, an interface that requires one to think might result in dangerous accidents.

p_l 5y ago
Thing is, sometimes the interface should make you think - when you're not yet trained on it and the purpose is inherently complex. HOTAS in aviation might be a case of "don't make me think", but it is built on hundreds of hours training your body till it understands the movements of controls intimately enough. Similarly a well trained operator on "clunky", "ancient" Mainframe system can handle for example your airline booking with great finesse and speed, and similarly with Bank tellers - meanwhile "intuitive" interface often ends up with people mousing and mousing and mousing to hit the right menu