231–240 of 641 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The contributors of free software tend to be power users who want to ensure their use case works. I don't think they're investing a lot of thought into the 80/20 use case for normal/majority or users or would risk hurting their workflow to make it easier for others
And this is precisely why desktop Linux has not knocked off Windows or MacOS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because programmers consent to programming for free. That fact does not, in any way, obligate anyone else to.
The question/skepticism is why the programmers are consenting to this but not the artists.
It's really not deep.
Good article, but the reasoning is wrong. It isn't easy to make a simple interface in the same way that Pascal apologized for writing a long letter because he didn't have time to write a shorter one. Implementing the UI for one exact use case is not much trouble, but figuring out what that use case is difficult. And defending that use case from the line of people who want "that + this little extra thing", or the "I j…
It always amazes me how even just regular every day users will come to me with something like this: Overly simplified example: "Can you make this button do X?" where the existing button in so many ways is only distantly connected to X. And then they get stuck on the idea that THAT button has to be where the thing happens, and they stick with it even if you explain that the usual function of that button is Y. I simpli…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spot on. Defending simplicity takes a lot of energy and commitment. It is not sexy. It is a thankless job. But doing it well takes a lot of skill, skill that is often disparaged by many communities as "political non sense"[1]. It is not a surprise that free software world has this problem. But it is not a uniquely free software world problem. It is there in the industry as well. But the marketplace serves as a realit…
The cycle repeats frequently in industry. New waves of startups address a problem with better UX, and maybe some other details like increased automated and speed using more modern architectures. But feature-creep eventually makes the UX cumbersome, the complexity makes it hard to migrate to new paradigms or at least doing so without a ton of baggage, so they in turn are displaced by new startups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because programmers consent to programming for free. That fact does not, in any way, obligate anyone else to.
The question/skepticism is why the programmers are consenting to this but not the artists.
That said, I don't think it's as simple as that. Coding is a kind of puzzle-solving that's very self-reinforcing and addictive for a certain type of person. Coders can't help plugging away at a problem even if they're not at the computer. Drawing, on the other hand, requires a lot more drudgery to get good, for most people anyway, and likely isn't as addictive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question/skepticism is why the programmers are consenting to this but not the artists.
Why aten't programmers drawing furry porn? It's really not deep.
You don't need two different versions of the software, one that is easy and one that is powerful. You can have one version that is both easy and powerful. Key concepts here are (1) progressive disclosure and (2) constraints. See Don Norman's Design of Everyday things. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/progressive-disclosure/ https://www.nngroup.com/videos/positive-constraints-in-ux-wo...
Progressive disclosure can be intensely annoying to actual power users. Definitionally, it means you're hiding (non-disclosing) features behind at least 1 secondary screen. Usually, it means hiding features behind several layers of disclosures. Making a very simple product more powerful via progressive disclosure can be a good way to give more power to non-power users. Making a powerful product "simpler" via progress…
As a UX guy, I'd like to note that the normal people aren't so great at knowing what they want, either. I dread "Can you add a button..." Or worse, "Can you add a check box..." Not only does that make it worse for other users, it also makes it worse for you, even if you don't realize it yet. What you need is to take their use case and imagine other ways to get there. Often that means completely turning their idea on…
Eg an app to prevent MacOS going to sleep. I want a checkbox to also stop an external display sleeping. I don't need my entire usage of the app and my computer-feature desires analysed and interpreted in a way that would make a psychoanalyst look like a hack.
But yes in a professional setting people do use "Can we add a button" to attempt to subvert your skillset, your experience, to take control of the implementation, and to bypass solid analysis and development practices