18 ms·
>And.. if you advocate for this I think you risk losing credibility It's a shame if new interface = credible by default. Look at all the car manufacturers (wel
by PKop 2y ago
>And.. if you advocate for this I think you risk losing credibility
It's a shame if new interface = credible by default. Look at all the car manufacturers (well some, probably not enough) finally after many years conceding the change to touch interfaces "because new" was a terrible idea, when the right old tool for the job was simply better...and obvious to end-users very quickly.
- photonthug 2y agoAgain in that case the newness of different tech isn’t actually the real problem and feels like the wrong critique. What’s problematic is trajectory and intent with things like planned obsolescence, subscriptions, ongoing costs in repairs after initial sale. I’d say that a new interface is barely even an issue compared with that.. although fwiw, yes, I prefer buttons rather than touch screens.
- PKop 2y ago>the newness of different tech isn’t actually the real problem and feels like the wrong critique I'm not equating new = bad. I'm saying new = good is wrong. And based on your last sentence, you do think car manufacturers all switching over to all touch controls was a problem. Almost everyone prefers buttons to touch screens, that's my point. The better more popular option was rejected because of a false premise, or false belief.