3 ms·

Are the people who designed this UI idiots? If no, then that contradicts your argument. Non-designers obviously do get it wrong. If yes, your argument has bec

by moring 2y ago

Are the people who designed this UI idiots? If no, then that contradicts your argument. Non-designers obviously do get it wrong. If yes, your argument has become a "no true scotsman" -- it no longer makes a statement about the capability of anyone, but simply defines "idiot" as people who get the UI wrong. Besides that, hindsight is 20/20. Was the UI obviously terrible before the accident happened?

ajkjk 2y ago
Yes they are idiots. Well more likely they were cogs in a dysfunctional bureaucracy that is not allowed to do good work because it doesn't allow common sense to drive decision making. So the 'idiot' here is an organization, maybe, and not a person. Yes, the UI was obviously terrible before the accident happened. My first thought when I saw the picture was, wow, that's terrible. You seem to be one of those people who doesn't believe that things can have inherent quality, or that anyone can perceive that quality. It's a sort of nihilism about the idea of excellence. But people do this everyday. It's easy. It's a natural impulse that most humans have when you interact with anything: this is shitty, this isn't shitty. So bad design is when something is made that's shitty and doesn't have to be. And if a large well-funded corporation makes something shitty, that's pathetic. But it happens all the time because organisations and leaders are incompetent.
- moring 2y ago
  > Yes they are idiots. Well more likely they were cogs in a dysfunctional bureaucracy that is not allowed to do good work because it doesn't allow common sense to drive decision making. So the 'idiot' here is an organization, maybe, and not a person. As I said, that turns your argument around: They did not make a bad UI because they are idiots, but rather they are idiots because they made a bad UI. This gives you zero insight to prevent future accidents. > Yes, the UI was obviously terrible before the accident happened. My first thought when I saw the picture was, wow, that's terrible. You saw that picture after you already knew that an accident happened. The interesting question is whether your conclusion would have been the same if you saw it without knowing about the accident. I really suggest that you have a look at the CAST handbook, because every single of your arguments gets taken apart there: http://sunnyday.mit.edu/CAST-Handbook.pdf http://sunnyday.mit.edu/CAST-Handbook.pdf (also posted in another sub-thread, but this whole HN discussion shows that still too few people know about it)
  - ajkjk 2y ago
    Jesus christ do you think that I'm so small-minded that I'm saying the UI is bad because I biased by knowing the accident happened already? and that I didn't realize I was doing it? No I thought it was shit instantly because I've played video games my whole life and if I played a game that had that UI for steering I'd uninstall it. You could at least assume other people are intelligent when you're talking to them.

by moring 2y ago

ajkjk 2y ago

Yes they are idiots. Well more likely they were cogs in a dysfunctional bureaucracy that is not allowed to do good work because it doesn't allow common sense to drive decision making. So the 'idiot' here is an organization, maybe, and not a person. Yes, the UI was obviously terrible before the accident happened. My first thought when I saw the picture was, wow, that's terrible. You seem to be one of those people who doesn't believe that things can have inherent quality, or that anyone can perceive that quality. It's a sort of nihilism about the idea of excellence. But people do this everyday. It's easy. It's a natural impulse that most humans have when you interact with anything: this is shitty, this isn't shitty. So bad design is when something is made that's shitty and doesn't have to be. And if a large well-funded corporation makes something shitty, that's pathetic. But it happens all the time because organisations and leaders are incompetent.

moring 2y ago
> Yes they are idiots. Well more likely they were cogs in a dysfunctional bureaucracy that is not allowed to do good work because it doesn't allow common sense to drive decision making. So the 'idiot' here is an organization, maybe, and not a person. As I said, that turns your argument around: They did not make a bad UI because they are idiots, but rather they are idiots because they made a bad UI. This gives you zero insight to prevent future accidents. > Yes, the UI was obviously terrible before the accident happened. My first thought when I saw the picture was, wow, that's terrible. You saw that picture after you already knew that an accident happened. The interesting question is whether your conclusion would have been the same if you saw it without knowing about the accident. I really suggest that you have a look at the CAST handbook, because every single of your arguments gets taken apart there: http://sunnyday.mit.edu/CAST-Handbook.pdf http://sunnyday.mit.edu/CAST-Handbook.pdf (also posted in another sub-thread, but this whole HN discussion shows that still too few people know about it)
- ajkjk 2y ago
  Jesus christ do you think that I'm so small-minded that I'm saying the UI is bad because I biased by knowing the accident happened already? and that I didn't realize I was doing it? No I thought it was shit instantly because I've played video games my whole life and if I played a game that had that UI for steering I'd uninstall it. You could at least assume other people are intelligent when you're talking to them.