2 ms·
> Either as an end to end experience or simply fewer bugs? I'd say we build bigger things with the same size/bug ratio. Therefore, "Small is beautiful".
by astrobe_ 4y ago
> Either as an end to end experience or simply fewer bugs?
I'd say we build bigger things with the same size/bug ratio. Therefore, "Small is beautiful".
- chiefalchemist 4y agoMaybe. But user's have no sense of size. Nor do that care. I am forever fielding questions / issue from my (retirement age+) parents. They are my benchmark for usability. From being able to open jars of food, to a website bug, to ambiguous UXs. Until these questions are reduced - and they been steady for many year now - then I'll presume we, the makers, are failing.
- astrobe_ 4y ago> Nor do that care. That's a misunderstanding about size. It is not about saving some kilobytes - indeed we have more than enough RAM/ROM/flash/mass storage in general, although it is a bit less true currently due to shortages - but it is a hint that the whole thing is better in other areas as well. Except for the cases where a speed/size trade-off has been made of course. But even when it is a features/size trade-off, it is not always a bad deal, because software often has lots of features you don't care about, but could nevertheless introduce bugs in the features you do use.