4 ms·
I wouldn't compare learning folders to learning car ignition timing. That's more like learning about inodes--something that's interesting but irrelevant to any
by acabal 14y ago
I wouldn't compare learning folders to learning car ignition timing. That's more like learning about inodes--something that's interesting but irrelevant to anyone but enthusiasts.
I would instead compare folders to knowing that your car's oil must be changed. (Who doesn't love a car analogy?) You can survive without that knowledge, and you even can pay others to do it. But it's very simple stuff, and at the very, very least, in order to (successfully) own a car you must know that the oil has to be changed every now and then, if not by you then by someone else. It's a matter of fundamental knowledge of the tools you're using.
If you want to live without that knowledge, then it's your own fault really, because it's not hard to learn and every car ever made uses the concept. It's in the manual. If you don't want to learn it, are too lazy to, think it's too hard, or have different priorities, then that's cool--but don't expect car makers to put effort into molding cars to your whims, because it turns out oil is pretty useful in a car.
If a person was born in 1870 and decided to buy a car in 1930, well, it's up to them to learn that cars need their oil changed. Age is not really an excuse, nor is being born to a different generation.
In either case, you're right: the general public will continue to be too uninterested to learn basic computing principles. (And again I mean basic, like files and folders.) But ruining it for the rest of us isn't the way to fix that.
- lovskogen 14y agoIt's the users own fault? Really? We make products for the users, and they never do anything wrong – and it's never their fault.
- acabal 14y agoSorry, but the buck has to stop somewhere. For example, if a handful of users can't figure out how to use a mouse, then do we replace all mouses with Wacom tablets because they're so "inelegant" and "unintuitive" to a few people? No, because it turns out they're very useful for most people who get it. Do they require practice and a certain (very small) amount of domain knowledge? Yes. Is that a bad thing, considering how useful they are? No. "The user is always right" isn't an ultimate mandate. The customer isn't right if they come in to your store and demand everything for free. Likewise a driver isn't right if he doesn't want to figure out which pedal is "stop" and which one is "go". You must have a certain small amount of domain knowledge to use the complex tools you're given, and dumbing things down for the lowest common denominator is a Sisyphean task because there's always a lower common denominator just under them.
- lovskogen 14y agoTouch screens replaced mice with something that feels more natural.
- acuozzo 14y ago> Touch screens replaced mice with something that feels more natural. Oh, yeah? Show me the data you have that supports your statement.
- lovskogen 14y agoPeople are buying and using touch devices, and they claim it's easy to use.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- ehutch79 14y agoWhile more natural, they are not as useful. they require ui elements to have WAY more realestate on already paltry screens in most cases, (seriously, most 15" laptops are 1366x768) and don't allow for easy access to context menus. right clicking things was the best thing that ever happened to UIs since renaming directories to folders.
- lovskogen 14y ago
- mattdeboard 14y agoFoolish line of reasoning. Of course they do things wrong. It's just that you have a different set of expectations for what users must learn to do to operate something than other people. (e.g. users need to know how to turn on their computer, what a usb port is to charge/connect peripherals, etc.)
- lovskogen 14y agoI think it's a great principle to design from, it challenges one do to better. And: users wouldn't need to know what a USB port is, if the design was self-evident. I don't think reasoning like "must" (or "never") pushes innovation and great design.
- novalis 14y ago"users wouldn't need to know what a USB port is, if the design was self-evident." "I don't think reasoning like "must" (or "never") pushes innovation and great design" So "never" getting to know what a USB port is for, "must" be the result of great design ? It "must" be, but that would be bad... by you own stunted definitions. But do keep moving the goal posts around. In the end you just produce a lot of forced substitutive declarations, like the concepts of innovation and great design that you use. You seem to void them in the process. They will always be "better" solely because they are used by you, no matter the paradox and bs level needed to try to justify something that isn't even real.
- lovskogen 14y agoNever having to know what a USB port is, while still getting your digital pictures into your photo app is great design.
- novalis 14y agoI am going to let the "never" slide because you switched on it again. So we are down to your point being that there aren't any good designers around ? And somehow "great design" occludes knowledge. Does this configure or bring any hope for users, it would be the designers that lock users out of the know-how... you see how that may not even be possible, because of innate properties like human curiosity, the very target of said "great design".
- Someone 14y ago"in order to (successfully) own a car you must know that the oil has to be changed every now and then" I do not drive a car, but aren't we moving towards "a red blinking light means 'go to the garage within a few weeks'"? Similarly, "to (successfully) go from A to B you must know how to read a map", "to print a photograph you need to be able to work a dark room", "to make a hole in a wall you need strong muscles", etc. " But ruining it for the rest of us isn't the way to fix that." Counterargument: ruining it for the general population is not the way to sell shitloads of hardware.