5 ms·

What's wrong with giving users options? I think it's an insult to peoples' intelligence. Cars give users the option to drive into a brick wall at 80 MPH, but th

by alexvr 14y ago

What's wrong with giving users options? I think it's an insult to peoples' intelligence. Cars give users the option to drive into a brick wall at 80 MPH, but this doesn't mean people will be inclined to do so.

aneth4 14y ago
I often wish software would insult my intelligence in this way more often. I have enough choices in life. Most of Ye time I just want other people to make the best choice for me.
- Erwin 14y ago
  3D computer games on the PC are especially bad -- with a dozen weird graphic options you cannot really evaluate. What will setting texture quality to "Very High" instead of "High" really mean and how much slower will my game run? Maybe the effect won't even be noticable until a later level. "Occular Blimspace Remapping" is set to 2x but can go up to 16x, how much do I need? Are the autodetected settings optimal or could my game be much better looking if I just increased something, but what?
  - artificialidiot 14y ago
    "While you are trying to find optimal gfx settings, we also detected you are having difficulty passing level 4. Shall we play instead of you so you can go on with your life?"
drstewart 14y ago
>What's wrong with giving users options? What's wrong with it is that it adds a hidden cost to the software that makes it harder to develop. Every option splits your application into at least two possible states. If you have 1000 options, that's 2^1000 different states that you have to support. Every feature added has to make sure it doesn't break one of these states, making it harder and harder to develop for. Making something an option should not be the default behavior.
- alexvr 14y ago
  So developer comfort takes precedence over user choice? Or are you saying options are just way more difficult to implement than they are worth (considering the small proportion of users actually take advantage of them)?

by alexvr 14y ago

aneth4 14y ago

I often wish software would insult my intelligence in this way more often. I have enough choices in life. Most of Ye time I just want other people to make the best choice for me.

Erwin 14y ago
3D computer games on the PC are especially bad -- with a dozen weird graphic options you cannot really evaluate. What will setting texture quality to "Very High" instead of "High" really mean and how much slower will my game run? Maybe the effect won't even be noticable until a later level. "Occular Blimspace Remapping" is set to 2x but can go up to 16x, how much do I need? Are the autodetected settings optimal or could my game be much better looking if I just increased something, but what?
- artificialidiot 14y ago
  "While you are trying to find optimal gfx settings, we also detected you are having difficulty passing level 4. Shall we play instead of you so you can go on with your life?"

drstewart 14y ago

>What's wrong with giving users options? What's wrong with it is that it adds a hidden cost to the software that makes it harder to develop. Every option splits your application into at least two possible states. If you have 1000 options, that's 2^1000 different states that you have to support. Every feature added has to make sure it doesn't break one of these states, making it harder and harder to develop for. Making something an option should not be the default behavior.

alexvr 14y ago
So developer comfort takes precedence over user choice? Or are you saying options are just way more difficult to implement than they are worth (considering the small proportion of users actually take advantage of them)?