4 ms·
Is it, though? I'm not so sure. Git has enjoyed overwhelming success, which would seem to empirically indicate that it's done something right in terms of desig
by throwaway09223 4y ago
Is it, though? I'm not so sure.
Git has enjoyed overwhelming success, which would seem to empirically indicate that it's done something right in terms of design
Perhaps the obviously wrong UX/UI isn't wrong? Perhaps UX/UI people aren't good at designing interfaces for experts?
- xigoi 4y agoGit has been successful despite the UI, not because of it.
- throwaway09223 4y agoCan you substantiate your opinion? It's open source, so why hasn't an alternate interface taken over?
- lolinder 4y agoBecause standardization matters and the first thing to become the standard is extremely difficult to unseat.
- throwaway09223 4y agoBut some of types of things have in fact changed, sometimes for seemingly trivial reasons. For example, the master/main branch shift. Everything broke when that change was made, but it happened and it wasn't a big deal. I'm not seeing the difficulty here. It seems that a more reasonable interpretation is that git has the type of interface that is hard to learn, but intuitive once learned.
- xigoi 4y agoThe master/main shift was fueled by political correctness. If “master” wasn't a synonym of a word associated with slavery, it would've never happened.
- seadan83 4y agoI'm not sure this makes sense. Are we talking the core CLI, or about any of the dozen UI clients? For CLI, it's easy to create any number of command aliases and scriptlets to have the exact UI you want..