4 ms·

This expands on my point really well. Designers, more than anything else, have to 1) know the problem better than the user, and 2) interpret what users say they

This expands on my point really well. Designers, more than anything else, have to 1) know the problem better than the user, and 2) interpret what users say they want/need to ascertain what they really want/need. They also know how to differentiate between what users want, what users need, and what users think they want/need, but which they really don't. It's a practical difference that goes beyond what's merely possible in programming. It also includes what's feasible and targets the problem most successfully. Designers have the burden of preserving coveted features, furthering a competitive advantage, and removing features that confuse users. It doesn't help users to give them everything they need, it only obfuscates software for them. A minimalist program that perfectly achieves what one group of users wants is superior to large software loaded with every feature requested ever catering for the entire market. It's like buying a suit. It's better to get one tailored to your exact measurements (needs) than to buy a suit mass produced in the most popular, requested sizes. In theory, proprietary software cannot fulfill this function as well as open source, because a programmer could just identify his own problem using his own experience and solve it. But in practice, this doesn't scale to anything larger than an individual, so proprietary software comes in, where skilled designers are paid heaps of money to do all of the aforementioned. If there's one thing that kills open source software, it's the amount of decision making it places on users. Good designers (which cost money) know which decisions to make themselves so they don't confuse users. This also goes hand in hand with freedom zero. Users don't want freedom because they don't want to make decisions. They want a problem solved but they don't care if they're "free" while it's done. They just want it accomplished so they can be on their merry way.

pdonis 13y ago
Designers, more than anything else, have to 1) know the problem better than the user, and 2) interpret what users say they want/need to ascertain what they really want/need. I agree that this is what designers have to do in a perfect world, but in many cases in the real world it doesn't happen that way. Also, that kind of specialized design costs money: It's like buying a suit. It's better to get one tailored to your exact measurements (needs) than to buy a suit mass produced in the most popular, requested sizes. Yes, this is an apt analogy: many people can't afford custom-tailored software any more than they can afford custom-tailored clothes. In fact, custom-tailored software is harder to come by. a programmer could just identify his own problem using his own experience and solve it. But in practice, this doesn't scale to anything larger than an individual This is just as true of proprietary software as it is of open source. As you note, the problem is a simple matter of scaling. Specialized expertise in general doesn't scale. proprietary software ... where skilled designers are paid heaps of money to do all of the aforementioned. Many people never get to use any software that's been custom-designed this way, whether it's proprietary or open source. Even in a corporate environment, from what I've seen, most custom-designed software is not designed by skilled designers who do all the great things you've described. But the point the OP was making about Freedom Zero isn't really about a corporate environment; it's about things like Facebook. See further comments below. If there's one thing that kills open source software, it's the amount of decision making it places on users. And if there's one thing that makes proprietary software suck, it's the amount of decision making it doesn't allow users to do even when they want to. Good designers (which cost money) know which decisions to make themselves so they don't confuse users. The (which cost money) qualifier is key. See above. Users don't want freedom because they don't want to make decisions. They want a problem solved but they don't care if they're "free" while it's done. They just want it accomplished so they can be on their merry way. Yes, that's true, but that doesn't mean that's always a smart position to take in the long run. Sure, buy an iDevice--and be prepared to cough up more cash whenever Apple decides, for reasons best known to itself, that you need to upgrade. Sure, use Facebook--and be prepared to have your surfing habits sold to the highest bidder. That said, I think you have the right answer to the question the OP asked: people don't care about Freedom Zero because they don't care about the long-term consequences of their decisions. They just want a problem solved, now, and they will take the path of least resistance to get it solved.

pdonis 13y ago

Designers, more than anything else, have to 1) know the problem better than the user, and 2) interpret what users say they want/need to ascertain what they really want/need. I agree that this is what designers have to do in a perfect world, but in many cases in the real world it doesn't happen that way. Also, that kind of specialized design costs money: It's like buying a suit. It's better to get one tailored to your exact measurements (needs) than to buy a suit mass produced in the most popular, requested sizes. Yes, this is an apt analogy: many people can't afford custom-tailored software any more than they can afford custom-tailored clothes. In fact, custom-tailored software is harder to come by. a programmer could just identify his own problem using his own experience and solve it. But in practice, this doesn't scale to anything larger than an individual This is just as true of proprietary software as it is of open source. As you note, the problem is a simple matter of scaling. Specialized expertise in general doesn't scale. proprietary software ... where skilled designers are paid heaps of money to do all of the aforementioned. Many people never get to use any software that's been custom-designed this way, whether it's proprietary or open source. Even in a corporate environment, from what I've seen, most custom-designed software is not designed by skilled designers who do all the great things you've described. But the point the OP was making about Freedom Zero isn't really about a corporate environment; it's about things like Facebook. See further comments below. If there's one thing that kills open source software, it's the amount of decision making it places on users. And if there's one thing that makes proprietary software suck, it's the amount of decision making it doesn't allow users to do even when they want to. Good designers (which cost money) know which decisions to make themselves so they don't confuse users. The (which cost money) qualifier is key. See above. Users don't want freedom because they don't want to make decisions. They want a problem solved but they don't care if they're "free" while it's done. They just want it accomplished so they can be on their merry way. Yes, that's true, but that doesn't mean that's always a smart position to take in the long run. Sure, buy an iDevice--and be prepared to cough up more cash whenever Apple decides, for reasons best known to itself, that you need to upgrade. Sure, use Facebook--and be prepared to have your surfing habits sold to the highest bidder. That said, I think you have the right answer to the question the OP asked: people don't care about Freedom Zero because they don't care about the long-term consequences of their decisions. They just want a problem solved, now, and they will take the path of least resistance to get it solved.