> At this point, connecting to different wifi networks and turning on and off the radio should be considered basic knowledge--if you'd like to argue to the contrary, please save us the trouble and acknowledge that you want to remove any semblance of security for users.
I'm just trying to point out that expectations on connectivity are not consistent from one machine or platform to the next and that inconsistency makes it difficult for a user to understand what is going on.
> The proxy probably threw up a message describing that it was working properly, and that the requested content was blocked because of $reason.
> Things were working as expected and designed, and the user tried to do something that was outside of that envelope. If the user wants to do more, the user should learn to do more.
I would argue that things were not working as expected for the user but the proxy was working as intended and designed by the network admins. That mismatch is what makes using proxy or feature limited networks hard to use.
> User did not understand the idea of remote content. User should be made aware of difference in remote content, possibly even later going on to use it to make smaller presentations where appropriate, or to guarantee operation in network-limited situations.
Having worked with video troubleshooting for a variety of people, some folks understand that the video is remote and some do not. PowerPoint definitely should be designed in a way that helps the user make the distinction better than it currently does.
> User acknowledged that they were aware of virus scanners, used file-sharing programs, and voluntarily did not take prophylactic measures.
Relying on user behavior for this is a bad idea and brings down the security of the network. By default, always updated AV is a far better option for most people.
> User has apparently never used a television with a separate cable box, or a car with a radio, or a projector with a laptop. User now knows better, and can teach others!
That is probably true. I've done TV sales and installation before and the mental model of displays and input/output is not well understood by the average person. Moreover, connecting different kinds of screens and devices can result in different behavior and may need different troubleshooting steps. That inconsistency makes it difficult for people to use those devices and displays, esp. in the context of how many all-in-one computer and display devices the average person will use.
> User did not understand function of all buttons on machine. User now understands function of wireless toggle on machine, can help others.
The button has a use, but perhaps the hardware and/or software should more clearly communicate that the hardware is disabled.
> User deliberately skips impatiently past diagnostic information sufficient to immediately ascertain source of issue and enable rectification.
> User will go on to one day become stranded in traffic having ignored "low fuel" light in car.
It is well understood now that user do not read dialogs. Relying on dialogs as a communication method is a poor design and shouldn't be relied upon. Moreover, cars do suffer issues with users understanding error indicators, so I'm not really sure what you are trying to say.
> User bought into frictionless ecosystem, and was not notified that the needful was already happening automatically--though pondering the question "what if my phone breaks?" would've prevented this.
> (To be fair, this is outright poor software design.)
The tethered backup/restore for iOS devices via iTunes is not frictionless. It would be frictionless is the backup/restore was automatic through the web rather than requiring a specific step of steps. You are right that this is poor software design, absolutely.
Also, pre-iPhone a lot of people did expect to lose their contacts, esp. for those cell phone owners that didn't use devices with sim cards that can be moved from device to device.
> User never bothered to learn difference between shortcuts and files. User now knows difference, hopefully.
Even users that can click the correct icons may have trouble understanding the difference between files and shortcuts. To be fair, this may be one of those things that just needs to be taught in a direct fashion, because I'm not sure any software design change could really accommodate this misunderstanding (not even file system hiding OSes like Android/iOS do this right).
> User does not notice telltale UI mismatch, and does not know machine well enough to catch that. User hopefully now knows better.
The UI mismatch is not telltale to the average person. UI designs and paradigms change very often and the basic mechanics of windowed GUIs aren't well understood by the average person outside of the most basic operations. Again, there is a reason why malware ads and spam ads use these techniques, they are seeking to take advantage of the average level of information literacy.
It is easy to blame users for a lot of the issues they encounter, but that is completely unproductive. If computer hardware and software cannot work well and easily for the lowest common denominator then they are not improving people's lives, they are making them worse or putting those people in a position to have their lives made worse (virus infection, identity theft, loss of important documents/photos, etc.)