3 ms·
Leading in with a criticism like you did hurts the rest of your post. You are both free to not agree with each other. Taking the disagreement as far as to cla
by taeric 3y ago
Leading in with a criticism like you did hurts the rest of your post. You are both free to not agree with each other. Taking the disagreement as far as to claim the other person is fundamentally wrong is rather unkind and unlikely to sway each other.
In this particular point, I think you are hitting how things don't scale up. That is, it makes sense that what would work for a small case would not work for a larger one. I expect that is the case with a lot of features.
There is also the case of trained usage versus exploratory usage. Expect that expert users need fewer feedback affordances than other users do. Further expect that you need training of some sort to become an expert. You see this even in games. And you will find far more affordances on beginner games than you will on others.
- eviks 3y agoIs the assertion that there is no uncertainty a fundamental one in his argument?
- taeric 3y agoI'm not clear what you are asking. (Honestly having a hard time grokking your sentence here, my apologies.) I think you are appealing to what many would consider degenerate cases to assert that because it can have uncertainty, it always has uncertainty. Is that accurate? If so, I don't disagree that movements can be ambiguous or hard to reason about. I'd assert the majority are not, though. To the point that in normal use, it is a fair assumption. And again, you are free to disagree on this one. As someone that learned to type and edit without having to look at keyboard or screen, visual affordances sometimes feel off to me, personally. Doesn't mean I think they have no purpose.
- eviks 3y agoI was asking whether you thought it was unkind because you disagree the part of the argument is fundamental (so being wrong there is fundamental) or you agree it's fundamenal, but just saying it out loud is unkind