4 ms·

I am sympathetic to the argument here, but I think this misrepresents the counterargument. I think the argument against this is simply that it's not what people

I am sympathetic to the argument here, but I think this misrepresents the counterargument. I think the argument against this is simply that it's not what people actually want, it's what people like us want them to want. It sort of reminds me of that series where an architect makes fun of mcmansion monstrosities. The architect is right - those mcmansions suck - and we're right - simplicity in computing is better - but I think people want the mcmansions and I think people want the flashier more interactive software.

krapp 5y ago
>but I think people want the mcmansions and I think people want the flashier more interactive software I think that's a bit too condescending. People don't want mcmansions and flash, they want to publish to the internet quickly and efficiently. The web is a tool for them, a means to an end. The HN set might prefer to live in a world where computers only shipped with Emacs and the web was just a raw JSON API and you had to write your own software for everything from scratch, but no one else does. And that's perfectly legitimate. Why should someone making music, or art, or who wants to set up a business or network with people have to hand-code their own HTML or write their own backend just because some self-appointed gatekeepers decided that using a service ruins the artisinal quirkiness of the web? That's like saying authors should have to hand-write their manuscripts or set their own type. The web is a tool that's supposed to serve everyone.
- sanderjd 5y ago
  > People don't want mcmansions and flash, they want to publish to the internet quickly and efficiently. The web is a tool for them, a means to an end. I think for many and probably most people, the web is an entertainment much more so than a tool. What I said is only condescending if you add a judgment to it, rather than it just being an observation. I think I did that when I said that the architects are "right" about mcmansions and that we're "right" about simplicity. But those are just my own preferences and I really don't begrudge people for having different ones. I think it is more condescending (or perhaps patronizing is a better word) to claim that we know what's better for people, that they'd see that they really prefer simple brutalist software design if only that's what we would give them. I've just been around long enough to see this evolution from web applications that were very barebones to the current state, and my interpretation of what has happened during this period of time is that we've been following the preferences of most people who use software, as we should.
nonrandomstring 5y ago
Edit: Sorry Sandersd, I did not carefefully read what you said "it's what people like us want them to want." - which is even more interesting! I would go one stage more "meta" and say; No. Actually one of the deep, deep problems in computer science and digital technology is the very idea that "we know what people want". Or that they know themselves. There is so much said in this forum and other software communities about "what people really want". Outside of quite narrow UX psychology - which deals mainly with how people prefer to complete tasks within paradigms that have already been selected for them - I know of little or no evidence based research on the lifestyle and societal choices around technology. That is why I frequently use the phrase *foisted upon" in Digital Vegan [1][2], to indicate the extraordinary errors of sentiment attribution that occur around tech. [1] https://digitalvegan.net https://digitalvegan.net [2] 'Foisted' is not the same as 'forced', but nontheless there is a 'great lie' that we tell ourselves about how markets of demand and supply work in realtion to technology.
- sanderjd 5y ago
  I agree with this somewhat. But I also think in the face of unknowable true desires, that the preferences revealed by what does and doesn't get used by more people should be taken seriously and at face value. I saw "web 1.0" versions in the early to mid 2000s of pretty much every product that became big in the late 2000s and 2010s. People made their choice.

krapp 5y ago

>but I think people want the mcmansions and I think people want the flashier more interactive software I think that's a bit too condescending. People don't want mcmansions and flash, they want to publish to the internet quickly and efficiently. The web is a tool for them, a means to an end. The HN set might prefer to live in a world where computers only shipped with Emacs and the web was just a raw JSON API and you had to write your own software for everything from scratch, but no one else does. And that's perfectly legitimate. Why should someone making music, or art, or who wants to set up a business or network with people have to hand-code their own HTML or write their own backend just because some self-appointed gatekeepers decided that using a service ruins the artisinal quirkiness of the web? That's like saying authors should have to hand-write their manuscripts or set their own type. The web is a tool that's supposed to serve everyone.

sanderjd 5y ago
> People don't want mcmansions and flash, they want to publish to the internet quickly and efficiently. The web is a tool for them, a means to an end. I think for many and probably most people, the web is an entertainment much more so than a tool. What I said is only condescending if you add a judgment to it, rather than it just being an observation. I think I did that when I said that the architects are "right" about mcmansions and that we're "right" about simplicity. But those are just my own preferences and I really don't begrudge people for having different ones. I think it is more condescending (or perhaps patronizing is a better word) to claim that we know what's better for people, that they'd see that they really prefer simple brutalist software design if only that's what we would give them. I've just been around long enough to see this evolution from web applications that were very barebones to the current state, and my interpretation of what has happened during this period of time is that we've been following the preferences of most people who use software, as we should.

nonrandomstring 5y ago

Edit: Sorry Sandersd, I did not carefefully read what you said "it's what people like us want them to want." - which is even more interesting! I would go one stage more "meta" and say; No. Actually one of the deep, deep problems in computer science and digital technology is the very idea that "we know what people want". Or that they know themselves. There is so much said in this forum and other software communities about "what people really want". Outside of quite narrow UX psychology - which deals mainly with how people prefer to complete tasks within paradigms that have already been selected for them - I know of little or no evidence based research on the lifestyle and societal choices around technology. That is why I frequently use the phrase *foisted upon" in Digital Vegan [1][2], to indicate the extraordinary errors of sentiment attribution that occur around tech. [1] https://digitalvegan.net https://digitalvegan.net [2] 'Foisted' is not the same as 'forced', but nontheless there is a 'great lie' that we tell ourselves about how markets of demand and supply work in realtion to technology.

sanderjd 5y ago
I agree with this somewhat. But I also think in the face of unknowable true desires, that the preferences revealed by what does and doesn't get used by more people should be taken seriously and at face value. I saw "web 1.0" versions in the early to mid 2000s of pretty much every product that became big in the late 2000s and 2010s. People made their choice.