Chrome on Windows 8 is a trainwreck




  • @ender said:

    @Maciejasjmj said:
    1. The first google result for "TomTom" is the official site. If he kept scouring, then he's an idiot.
    Depends on the region - here the first result is a google ad for a local webshop, first actual result is another webshop selling them, only then the official site is listed.

    And search history - Google knows all! 



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    1. The first google result for "TomTom" is the official site. If he kept scouring, then he's an idiot.

    He's an inexperienced user with a computer set up for him by a giant retailer, so he was using IE and Bing with no ad blocking, not Google. Fuck knows what the top result for any given search is going to be on any given day.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    2. What you said doesn't work in practice. Idiots will remain idiots, no matter how hard you try to prevent that.

    I agree that idiocy is incurable, but I have lots of naive and inexperienced customers, very few of whom are idiots but most of whom are fundamentally IT-ignorant. Ignorance is absolutely curable, and I make a point of doing that whenever I can. That's why it shits me when the tools available to people appear to be designed with the explicit aim of encouraging the maintenance of as much ignorance as possible.

    It seems to me that this is in large part a natural consequence of the IT industry's ingrained culture of professional arrogance. There's a really strong tendency for IT people to dismiss anybody who behaves in an IT-naive fashion as an idiot, when in fact they are most likely a perfectly competent teacher or surgeon or builder or whatever.

    The fact that 99% of IT training courses amount to no more than How To Start Word And Choose A Fancy Font doesn't help much either. It's unfair to call somebody an idiot who has never actually been given a chance to learn a given skill.



  • @flabdablet said:

    The fact that 99% of IT training courses amount to no more than How To Start Word And Choose A Fancy Font doesn't help much either. It's unfair to call somebody an idiot who has never actually been given a chance to learn a given skill.

    Because a very large number don't. Speaking purely of my own experiences, and in agreement with every single IT person I know, the vast majority of users do not want to learn. They want the magic box to work, and they don't care how.

    This phenomenon isn't unique to computers, by the way. Do you know how your car works? How about your dishwasher? Could you repair and troubleshoot an issue with your furnace? No, you hit the buttons, expect them to work, and call the repair man when they don't. The fact that computers have become so pervasive in our lives so quickly does not negate this aspect of them; there are those who know how to fix and tinker with them, and there are many, many more who don't. Frankly, I think when it comes to computers, that's going to have to change.

    There's an excellent article I read on this. It's a bit long, but anyone interested in this topic should check out Kids Can't Use Computers... And This Is Why It Should Worry You.



  • @Master Chief said:

    It's a bit long, but anyone interested in this topic should check out Kids Can't Use Computers... And This Is Why It Should Worry You.

    Wow that guy gets so close to making a point, then goes completely off-his-rocker about surveillance paranoia, then goes into "what a fucking dick" territory:

    When they hit eleven, give them a plaintext file with ten-thousand WPA2 keys and tell them that the real one is in there somewhere. See how quickly they discover Python or Bash then.

    Seriously? What a fucking dick.

    And naturally, you soon hit upon this old canard:

    USE LINUX. Okay, so it’s not always practical, but most Linux distros really get you to learn how to use a computer. Everyone should at least have a play around at some point in their lives. If you’re not going to use Linux then if you’re on OS X have a play around in the terminal. It really is fun and you get to feel like a hacker, as does the Command Line or PowerShell in Windows.

    Oh right. It's ok that Linux is fucking awful. Because you see: you think it's just because Linux developers don't give a shit about their users. But it's not. They're doing that on purpose, as a public service to help you learn computers! (By "computers", of course, they mean "things only applicable to Linux." Because teaching Bash is obviously the best way of teaching computers in a world where 95% of them only run PowerShell.)

    His car metaphor is especially inept, as it argues the exact opposite of his point.



  • @Master Chief said:

    in agreement with every single IT person I know, the vast majority of users do not want to learn. They want the magic box to work, and they don't care how.

    I'm an IT person, and I agree that the vast majority of users want the magic box to work and don't care how - until they can't make it do something they want it to do. That's when they come looking for somebody technically competent to help them, and that creates a teachable moment.

    As a working technician, my attitude has always been that I am fucking well going to explain to you what I'm doing as I do it, and you are fucking well going to sit there and learn something from the experience, or else you will have a lot of trouble getting me back to fix your next problem. I've been working that way at the school for the last eight years, and honestly there are only two staff members I can think of out of twenty on site that I've given up on trying to train. All the rest are far more IT-competent than they were before I started working with them. I do the same thing with my freelance work. I don't advertise, I get all my work via word of mouth referrals from people I've worked for before, and I get a lot of repeat business. There are plenty of people who do want to learn, and writing them all off really is just arrogant and shortsighted.

    I absolutely agree with the article you linked on the negative effects of the Dad Will Fix It phenomenon. That's why this dad will fix it but only if you're going to stick around and watch and learn while he does. And sure, most of the information won't stick and sure, it will take lots of sessions before enough of it does to be useful. The point is that there's a moral obligation to do what you can, and not to let the customer off the hook while you make your mystic passes and incantations. Priesthoods really fuck up societies.

    And yes, I do know how my car works well enough to diagnose with reasonably high accuracy what's gone wrong with it when it goes wrong, though I pay somebody else to get their hands dirty and their knuckles skinned maintaining it. My dishwasher, washing machine and other home appliances I fix myself. And if I had a furnace, I would learn how to fix that too.



  • @flabdablet said:

    My dishwasher, washing machine and other home appliances I fix myself.
     

    That's super-exceptional.



  • @dhromed said:

    @flabdablet said:

    My dishwasher, washing machine and other home appliances I fix myself.
     

    That's super-exceptional.

    I'm a technician.



  • 7. Learn to fix things. Tons of great books and youtube vids on fixing anything. Or ask an old dude. People used to fix things. No shit.



  • 2. DRIVE OLD JAPANESE CARS. EASY AND CHEAP TO FIX & THEY RUN FOR FUCKING EVER. ... 4. RIDE YOUR BIKE INSTEAD OF DRIVING AS MUCH AS YOU CAN. YOU NEED THE EXERCISE AND GAS IS EXPENSIVE.

    Gas prices are expensive when you buy cheap-ass cars? Mind = Blown.*

    @flabdablet said:

    7. Learn to fix things. Tons of great books and youtube vids on fixing anything. Or ask an old dude. People used to fix things. No shit.

    Alternatively, it's highly likely still under warranty. Just get it replaced. For free.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Wow that guy gets so close to making a point, then goes completely off-his-rocker about surveillance paranoia, then goes into "what a fucking dick" territory:

    I agree with you there. The network key thing is a little over the top, especially when he's expecting the kid to learn python or bash without the resources of the Internet. Just from the man pages, I suppose, which is fucking HELL.

    Plus, using Linux is no guarantee of being able to use anything else. Assuming using Linux without some technical competence wouldn't make you swear off computers forever.



  • @flabdablet said:

    @dhromed said:

    @flabdablet said:

    My dishwasher, washing machine and other home appliances I fix myself.
     

    That's super-exceptional.

    I'm a technician.

    I know enough to get by in many fields, including repairing large appliances when the problems are relatively simple. I also am wise enough to know when I don't know what I'm doing, and it's time to get someone in who does.



  • @Master Chief said:

    @flabdablet said:
    @dhromed said:

    @flabdablet said:

    My dishwasher, washing machine and other home appliances I fix myself.
     

    That's super-exceptional.

    I'm a technician.

    I know enough to get by in many fields, including repairing large appliances when the problems are relatively simple. I also am wise enough to know when I don't know what I'm doing, and it's time to get someone in who does.

    In many ways, knowing that you don't know what you're doing is better than knowing what you're doing.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Because teaching Bash is obviously the best way of teaching computers in a world where 95% of them only run PowerShell.

    95% of the computers in the world? I assume you're talking about the 96% of supercomputers that run Linux since that's the closest number to 95% on that page.



  • @Ben L. said:

    95% of the computers in the world? I assume you're talking about the 96% of supercomputers that run Linux since that's the closest number to 95% on that page.

    Right; we should teach kids to run supercomputers, since that's the kind of computer they're most likely to see day-to-day.



  • @Ben L. said:

    In many ways, knowing that you don't know what you're doing is better than knowing what you're doing.
    Given that it's the first step on the road to finding out what you're doing, and that finding out new things is enjoyable, I agree.



  • @Salamander said:

    Gas prices are expensive when you buy cheap-ass cars? Mind = Blown.*

    I have a cheap-ass second-hand Japanese car. It has a three cylinder 660cc motor and only eats 5 litres of fuel per 100km. It's fun to drive and I don't have to care much about gas prices.

    That said, I do prefer to walk if I'm going less than 1km or ride my bike if I'm going less than 5km, unless the weather is nasty.



  • @flabdablet said:

    It has a three cylinder 660cc motor...It's fun to drive
     

    Each cylinder of the engine on my car has that displacement...we must have very different definitions of "fun to drive."


  • BINNED

    @Master Chief said:

    Because a very large number don't. Speaking purely of my own experiences, and in agreement with every single IT person I know, the vast majority of users do not want to learn. They want the magic box to work, and they don't care how.
    I found it mildly interesting that the very next post was a blakeyrant proving your point.



  • @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    @Master Chief said:
    Because a very large number don't. Speaking purely of my own experiences, and in agreement with every single IT person I know, the vast majority of users do not want to learn. They want the magic box to work, and they don't care how.
    I found it mildly interesting that the very next post was a blakeyrant proving your point.

    Seems to me that there are two fundamentally different attitudes about how IT should be.

    On the one hand you have people like Blakey and Steve Jobs, who want computing devices that pretty much do work by magic; they're so good at figuring out what you want to do with them that you really don't need any training or expertise to use them effectively.

    On the other you have people like me and Albert Einstein, who think that everything should be made as simple as possible but no simpler. I have a lot more confidence in the ability of the average human being to learn and adapt appropriately than I do in that of the little machine in their pocket or on their desk.



  • @flabdablet said:

    Seems to me that there are two fundamentally different attitudes about how IT should be.

    On the one hand you have people like Blakey and Steve Jobs, who want computing devices that pretty much do work by magic; they're so good at figuring out what you want to do with them that you really don't need any training or expertise to use them effectively.

    On the other you have people like me and Albert Einstein, who think that everything should be made as simple as possible but no simpler. I have a lot more confidence in the ability of the average human being to learn and adapt appropriately than I do in that of the little machine in their pocket or on their desk.

    Those are both the same thing.

    When software is as simple as possible, it'll also be usable with no training or expertise.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    When software is as simple as possible, it'll also be usable with no training or expertise.


    That's a little optimistic, no? For someone to pick up a laptop and use the software with it with no training? Even iOS apps require tutorials or instructions, and those are about the most intuitive I've ever used (and for good reason, becoming an iOS developer showed me how strict Apple is about these things.)



  • @flabdablet said:

    @PedanticCurmudgeon said:
    @Master Chief said:
    Because a very large number don't. Speaking purely of my own experiences, and in agreement with every single IT person I know, the vast majority of users do not want to learn. They want the magic box to work, and they don't care how.
    I found it mildly interesting that the very next post was a blakeyrant proving your point.

    Seems to me that there are two fundamentally different attitudes about how IT should be.

    On the one hand you have people like Blakey and Steve Jobs, who want computing devices that pretty much do work by magic; they're so good at figuring out what you want to do with them that you really don't need any training or expertise to use them effectively.

    On the other you have people like me and Albert Einstein, who think that everything should be made as simple as possible but no simpler. I have a lot more confidence in the ability of the average human being to learn and adapt appropriately than I do in that of the little machine in their pocket or on their desk.

    I think what it really boils down to is if you want to run your hardware, or you want your hardware to run you. Personally, I'm the former (though printers could become a little more adaptive and intelligent, and I would not complain.)


  • @blakeyrat said:

    When software is as simple as possible, it'll also be usable with no training or expertise.

    See, that's where you and I have a fundamental disagreement.

    What you're excluding from your analysis, it seems to me, is the fact that the tasks for which software tools are helpful range in complexity from bleeding obvious to ridiculously complex; most are somewhere in between. Training and expertise in the problem domain is always going to be required, and that's not something I see as the function of all applicable software tools. Trying to make every tool solve the training problem as well as whatever it was created primarily to do leads not to simple software but to outrageously complex software, and outrageously complex software leads both to outrageously high development costs and to the existence of a "priest class" of developers since nobody else could possibly understand or maintain or adapt it in any reasonable amount of time.

    Where you see a technologically utopian future, I see an explosion of unmanageable complexity under the hood. It seems to me that applying software to almost any problem must involve confronting a certain irreducible minimum of complexity, and that all attempts to behave as if that irreducible minimum doesn't exist or isn't important or shouldn't exist are always going to cause blowback elsewhere.

    It seems to me that there's always going to be a tradeoff between effort spent on user training and effort spent on attempts to make it unnecessary, and that treating user training as too hard and therefore not really necessary must eventually lead to insane amounts of effort wasted on pursuing ever-diminishing returns in software "friendliness". Because there are people who are never going to learn what you make regardless of how friendly it is; these are people who just don't value learning things even slightly outside their comfort zones. But that's actually a much rarer attitude than most of the IT professionals I encounter appear to believe, and dumbing software down to the point where anti-learners have no motivation to get off their intellectual arses in order to deal with it just makes it far, far more irritating to everybody else.

    Windows 8 and Chrome, for example, both leave me feeling like I'm trying to use a chainsaw with a blade guard that covers the entire chain and can't be removed.



  • - it takes a lot of effort to make things effortless

    - it's not possible to determine if things are as simple as possible.



  • @dhromed said:

    it's not possible to determine if things are as simple as possible.
    Strictly speaking no, that's always a judgement call, and obviously it should only ever be a provisional judgement call. My point is that while it's obviously desirable that a software tool offers a simple and straightforward user experience for people who know what it's for and are willing to learn what it's capable of, putting constraints on functionality in an attempt to create a simple and straightforward user experience for the minority of people who have no clue and no willingness to obtain one is counter-productive.



  • @flabdablet said:

    Trying to make every tool solve the training problem as well as whatever it was created primarily to do leads not to simple software but to outrageously complex software, and outrageously complex software leads both to outrageously high development costs and to the existence of a "priest class" of developers since nobody else could possibly understand or maintain or adapt it in any reasonable amount of time.

    The only reason you get a "priest class" is because the development tools themselves are ridiculously difficult to use. Like, say... hm, the world we're in right now! Using Git isn't playing around with a piece of software, it's memorizing a 40,000 word chant and being whipped if you miss a syllable.

    If most software development was done in HyperCard, almost anybody can walk in off the street and after 10-15 minutes of looking at the code make effective changes to the program. HyperCard was released in, what, 1987? And note, you pedantic fucking dickweeds who I hate: I'm not saying software development should be done in HyperCard, I'm saying making programming easy enough for almost any random person has already been done, and could be done again-- if the existing "priest class" of horrible developers would fucking bother.

    Complexity under the hood... maybe the solution is to remove the hood?

    @flabdablet said:

    and dumbing software down

    Oh that lovely "dumbing down" phrase.

    @flabdablet said:

    and dumbing software down to the point where anti-learners have no motivation to get off their intellectual arses in order to deal with it just makes it far, far more irritating to everybody else.

    If someone doesn't want to learn, why make them learn? Why do you give a shit if they've learned or not? What the fuck business is it of yours?

    INCOMING CAR ANALOGY: The introduction of features like power steering and automatic transmissions made cars easier to learn and drive, and usage of cars exploded as a result. Most people driving today (in the US at least) don't know how to drive a manual transmission. So what? What harm is there in that? Who cares? You're the crazy person on the street corner screaming at passing traffic: "LEARN TO DRIVE MANUAL!" and when the drivers yell back, "Why?" you have nothing to respond with.

    Because why? The only reason you've given here is some vague emotional thing. "It's more irritating to everybody." EVERYBODY? Is it more irritating to the guy who is doing the task he couldn't do before? Hey... maybe the reason he couldn't do it before is because developers made the task too irritating to HIM. So I'm sorry but "more irritating" is not an argument here.

    And the big point you're missing in this entire post: the people causing these problems in the first place ARE the IT professionals you encounter. At least 99.9% of them. So why the fuck are you listening to them? Their attitude is basically, "hey let's make everything really fucking hard to use to protect our own salary, then write whiny posts about how when users learn things despite our efforts, it's 'irritating' to us!" Fuck those people.

    @flabdablet said:

    Windows 8 and Chrome, for example, both leave me feeling like I'm trying to use a chainsaw with a blade guard that covers the entire chain and can't be removed.

    Why? What task can you do in Linux that you can't in Windows 8? Just one thing. I dare you.


  • Considered Harmful

    @blakeyrat said:

    words

    You want to produce better, more usable software by lowering the barrier to entry for programming to allow stupider folks to program?

    I can't argue with that logic.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    words

    You want to produce better, more usable software by lowering the barrier to entry for programming to allow stupider folks to program?

    I can't argue with that logic.

    That's not even remotely my argument.



  • Blakeyrat, I think part of the problem here is that your focus for what you want is NOT the focus of many people in the industry, and I'd argue shouldn't be the focus of a true computing professional. This is a profession. It takes skill, training and talent to design and architect computer programs.

    I'd compare it to literacy. You seem to be arguing that everyone should be code-literate. That we should lower the entry barrier for writing code to the same level that's needed for writing at all. Which is, I suppose, an interesting and somewhat laudable goal. The problem is that most people who work in the industry could care less about basic literacy, but are instead concerned with the tools needed for complex formulations. And those tools need to be designed for them, not for the barely literate. Complaining that a software tool for software professionals is difficult to use for people who aren't versed in computing is like complaining that someone who is barely literate can't operate an industrial printing press or craft a 100 page thesis. Of course they can't, and we shouldn't need to care if they can.

    Or, to use your car analogy. It's like someone going to racetrack, complaining that all the cars are manual transmission, and wondering where the automatic transmission cars are "for the average driver." 

     



  • @blakeyrat said:

    the crazy person on the street corner
    screaming at passing traffic: "LEARN TO DRIVE MANUAL!" and when the
    drivers yell back, "Why?" you have nothing to respond with.
     

    That's cool and I agree. An automatic replaces the manual, and it's more usable.

    What's not good is making something really simple and hiding everything else that's even slightly more advanced in odd places, or removing it outright. And then not improving on the original. And making it worse.

    By that I mean the Start Screen. I mean, fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck. It starts programs, sure! But no better than the old start menu, and it kills or hides lots of unobtrusive functionality that made the computer easier to manage for people who are even slightly more advanced than that computer-as-appliance people. The start screen very obviously has ventured beyond "as simple as possible but no simpler" and straight into "rudimentary".

    I'm not opposed to simple computing. I have a washing  machine. I'd hate to have to program it every time to do my laundry. I pretty much just turn it on. But a computer is not that device. It can do anything. And when a thing can do anything, it needs more complex UI.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    allow stupider folks to program?
     

    GUYS I FOUND THE ELITIST



  • @Snooder said:

    It takes skill, training and talent to design and architect computer programs.
     

    And yet a pencil is the most accesible tool in the history of humankind. By having pencils,it suddenly means there's no more skill and training? Also talent is a myth. Stop using that word.

    Making a tool simple does not mean all your skill and teaching and requirements go out the window. Software-making software complexity is a barrier, not a necessity.

    Also, fuck Visual Studio for being programmer-hostile.



  • @dhromed said:

    @Snooder said:

    It takes skill, training and talent to design and architect computer programs.
     

    And yet a pencil is the most accesible tool in the history of humankind. By having pencils,it suddenly means there's no more skill and training?



    No. What's I'm saying is that it would be ridiculous to imagine a profession where every professional tool is as simple as a pencil. Take doctors. A syringe is a fairly easy to use and intuitive tool. But an ECG is not. And the focus for designing tools for doctors isn't on "making it accessible to everyone" but instead, as it should be, on "making it useful to doctors." 

    @dhromed said:

    Also talent is a myth. Stop using that word.

    What makes you think talent is a myth? Some people really truly are just better able to think in certain ways than others. I know very hardworking people who just can't understand certain mathematical concepts very well because they don't have the innate ability to connect patterns that would make it obvious. While other incredibly lazy people pick up the math easily because the patterns are blindingly obvious. That's talent.

     



  • Hang on, Blakey, I thought you were arguing that software should be accessible, not software development. That's two different animals. If it's the former, I'd agree though I think your ultimate goal is a little unrealistic as I said earlier. If it's the latter, I don't know how on Earth you'd do that. Sure, power steering and automatic gearboxes made cars accessible and easier to use, but that doesn't mean anyone driving one could engineer one.



  • @dhromed said:

    Also talent is a myth. Stop using that word.

    I think that's about the most profoundly stupid thing I've ever read. Sure, there are many skill sets that can be acquired through simple study, like mathematics, which are strict "this is right, this is wrong" type academics, but most studies I'd argue play far more into the gray. Artistic ones especially.



  • @Snooder said:

    I'd compare it to literacy.

    Society generally believes it's a good thing to have a 100% literacy rate.

    @Snooder said:

    You seem to be arguing that everyone should be code-literate. That we should lower the entry barrier for writing code to the same level that's needed for writing at all. Which is, I suppose, an interesting and somewhat laudable goal.

    There's two bits here:

    1) I think everybody should be code-literate, but I also believe that the code needs to come FAR more towards the center than the person. What programmers need to understand is that their programming environments are easy to change; human brains with 200,000+ years of conditioning are difficult to change.

    2) Society generally believes lowering barriers-to-entry is a good thing. I don't know why programming would be the exception to this rule.

    @Snooder said:

    Or, to use your car analogy. It's like someone going to racetrack, complaining that all the cars are manual transmission, and wondering where the automatic transmission cars are "for the average driver."

    The difference is cars for the average driver exist. That is not true for programming tools.



  • @Master Chief said:

    Hang on, Blakey, I thought you were arguing that software should be accessible, not software development.

    If I believe software should be accessible, then why wouldn't I believe software-for-writing-software should also be accessible?

    ... do you people even read these things before you hit Submit? Christ.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @blakeyrat said:

    1) I think everybody should be code-literate, but I also believe that the code needs to come FAR more towards the center than the person. What programmers need to understand is that their programming environments are easy to change; human brains with 200,000+ years of conditioning are difficult to change.

    Making everyone code-literate is a laudable goal, I guess, but most people seem to be just barely literate, if that, to begin with. I think it's a spectrum of people stupidity and motivation. A lot of human brains are pretty adaptable, others aren't.

    @blakeyrat said:

    2) Society generally believes lowering barriers-to-entry is a good thing. I don't know why programming would be the exception to this rule

    I agree. Of course, with all of the capabilities and preferences among people, there's never going to be general agreement on where effort is best spent or even if a particular advance in usability is really an advance or not.

    I know you loathe the phrase "dumbing down," but it's often applicable, and can be a good thing. Consider the difference between a pen and a stencil of the alphabet. I can do a lot with that stencil, and frankly, the output using the stencil is likely to be much more useful to other people than anything I can scratch out with a pen. But that doesn't mean the pen isn't more flexible and capable of doing lots of things that the stencil, with its dumbed down interface make very difficult to do.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    The difference is cars for the average driver exist. That is not true for programming tools.


    Well yes. Because "programming" in this context is like "racing." People don't need to be racecar drivers in order to get from their house to the grocery store. And they sure as hell don't need a race car to do it. In the same vein, most users don't need to know how to program to get their email, and they sure as hell don't need programming tools to do that either.

    And trying to twist tools intended for programming into a form that "any" user can use, is like trying to invent the racecar that the average joe can drive. It's pointless and self-defeating.



  •  @blakeyrat said:

    @Master Chief said:
    Hang on, Blakey, I thought you were arguing that software should be accessible, not software development.

    If I believe software should be accessible, then why wouldn't I believe software-for-writing-software should also be accessible?



    Because the software is used by everyone, thus should be accessible to everyone, whilesoftware development is only used by people trained as software developers and thus only needs to be useful to people trained as software developers? Which, since not everyone is or should be a software developer, accessibility is not one of those needs?

     



  • @Master Chief said:

    @dhromed said:
    Also talent is a myth. Stop using that word.

    I think that's about the most profoundly stupid thing I've ever read.

     

    Ask anyone with skill and they'll tell you exactly this. It's rather odd that you think it's "profoundly stupid", because it's how the world works, and it's how you acquire your skills. You deny that you worked for your skills? If you want to be a better programmer, you have to do some more programming.

    I'm sure the programming pixie visited you in your crib, but the rest of us had to, you know, WRITE PROGRAMS.

    @Master Chief said:

    Artistic ones especially.

    Artistic skills are granted through work and study. There is no talent. No magic predisposition to be a good artist. You have to do the work. I know.

    Skill is obtained by work and attention. Not magic.



  • @boomzilla said:

    there's never going to be general agreement on where effort is best spent or even if a particular advance in usability is really an advance or not.
     

    That's why you test.

    @boomzilla said:

    often

    *brrrr*

    @boomzilla said:

    But that doesn't mean the pen isn't more flexible and capable of doing lots of things that the stencil, with its dumbed down interface make very difficult to do.

    Interesting analogy. But the stencil isn't dumbed down. It requires more effort to use.

     

     

     


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @dhromed said:

    Artistic skills are granted through work and study. There is no talent. No magic predisposition to be a good artist. You have to do the work. I know.

    Skill is obtained by work and attention. Not magic.

    Even so, it takes more work and attention for some than others to achieve the same results. What do you want to call this difference?



  • @Snooder said:


    And trying to twist tools intended for programming into a form that "any" user can use, is like trying to invent the racecar that the average joe can drive.
     

    It's called "car".

     

    Edit
    Mind you, the average joe can drive a race car. They just need to build up the skill to control it. But the car is pretty accessible.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Even so, it takes more work and attention for some than others to achieve the same results. What do you want to call this difference?
     

    The difference is the time spent obtaining the skill, you nut.

    You honestly think my drawings were any different from the other kids' when I was 4? Of course not. But others stopped, and I continued.



  • @Snooder said:

    Because the software is used by everyone, thus should be accessible to everyone, while software development is only used by people trained as software developers and thus only needs to be useful to people trained as software developers?

    Yes, but I do not believe that status quo is necessary or right.

    @Snooder said:

    Which, since not everyone is or should be a software developer, accessibility is not one of those needs?

    Huh?

    If people don't want to write software, fine. Good for them. But if they do want to write software, the barrier-to-entry should be as small as possible-- and, ideally, there should be none at all.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    If people don't want to write software, fine. Good for them. But if they do want to write software, the barrier-to-entry should be as small as possible
     

     

    I'm starting to think that people are conflating "the skill to do a thing" with "the skill to use the tool to do a thing".

    Making software is hard. Programming should easy.

    Racing is hard. Driving the car should not be.

    Art is hard. The pencil is easy.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @dhromed said:

    @boomzilla said:
    But that doesn't mean the pen isn't more flexible and capable of doing lots of things that the stencil, with its dumbed down interface make very difficult to do.

    Interesting analogy. But the stencil isn't dumbed down. It requires more effort to use.

    Firstly, it doesn't necessarily take more effort. If you could see my freehand penmanship, you'd understand. But even if it does take more effort, that doesn't mean it isn't dumbed down. By which I mean that the options available to the user have been reduced and those options are staring him right in the face (discoverability!). The stencil is great for some things (maybe making a sign). You can more easily get consistent results, and it could even be faster. But only if you don't have to do something that wasn't already thought about by the designer.



  • @boomzilla said:

    If you could see my freehand penmanship, you'd understand.
     

    I currently can't tell if you mwan your handwriting is terrible or great.

    @boomzilla said:

    But even if it does take more effort, that doesn't mean it isn't dumbed down. By which I mean that the options available to the user have been reduced and those options are staring him right in the face (discoverability!). The stencil is great for some things (maybe making a sign). You can more easily get consistent results, and it could even be faster. But only if you don't have to do something that wasn't already thought about by the designer.
     

    That is true.

    And the problem there is that the desktop computer can do wayyyyy more than just stenciling things.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @dhromed said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Even so, it takes more work and attention for some than others to achieve the same results. What do you want to call this difference?

    The difference is the time spent obtaining the skill, you nut.

    You honestly think my drawings were any different from the other kids' when I was 4? Of course not. But others stopped, and I continued.

    So we're all the same? Some of us just work harder and longer?


Log in to reply