Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Computers Are Not Designed for Productivity

app.getflowmeter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 74 posts

Re: Computers Are Not Designed for Productivity

#61

Post by threatofrain »

im2w1l wrote: post #55
threatofrain wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the problem is OS design. Across his armful of assorted arguments, the poster made an argument that tiling managers suck, as well as some other things. That aside, I don't think it's the OS that is the problem, but rather that the computer is a gateway to many possibilities. Your OS, and the apps on your computer, can be designed with focus and cognitive ease in mind, but it does not change the fact tha…

Reading your comment I couldn't help but notice the juxtaposition of >I don't think the problem is OS design. >a few actions away is a Stargate to another world. Maybe we should design the OS so that "the stargate" is a whole lot of actions away.

I don't think the user would take kindly to obstructions to their browsing / app experience...

"Why does it take an extra unnecessary step to launch an app!? You're telling me this is for my own psychological good?!"

I suppose this goes to classical arguments about the role of government in banning drugs or mandating seat belts. The state doesn't think you are responsible enough, so they create an external structure (fines / criminal penalty) to make you do good for yourself.

Others would say that a sad restriction has been placed upon them because the rest of the population cannot regulate themselves to the satisfaction of the state. It can also be argued that now people rely on external pressure or structure to behave well rather than setting up their own internal structure.

Re: Computers Are Not Designed for Productivity

#62

Post by wilde »

Eh, Microsoft tried doing the "one thing at a time" approach in Windows 8. It didn't seem to work out for them. One can argue that it was partially due to trying to sandbox their entire software ecosystem at the same time, but in my experience, it was just too jarring when you did actually need to switch tasks or use reference material.

Re: Computers Are Not Designed for Productivity

#63

Post by gizmo686 »

a3n wrote: post #56
GuiA wrote: post #5

I have a Linux laptop on which I run a tiling window manager (in my case, Xmonad), and nothing else. No system tray, no quick launch bar, nothing. (if you're not familiar with tiling window managers, they're window managers in which windows are arranged automatically to a) fully occupy the screen and b) never overlap. They're extremely customizable, but typically you'll have a vertical half of your screen with a main…

I confess tiling envy. I try them out every year or two, but I generally abandon them because I can't get comfort functions to work, especially managing power, sleeping, hibernation and the lid, and key management. These things generally/often come with the more mainstream window managers, so I've never had to figure them out (and don't seem to be able to with twms). I remember looking for solutions to power for awes…

You can try using a tiling window manager with in a more traditional desktop environment. I think Awesome has a wiki article on running Gnome with Awesome as the WM.

Re: Computers Are Not Designed for Productivity

#64

Post by fit2rule »

_xnmw wrote: post #21
fit2rule wrote: post #14

Computers are designed for open-ended productivity, where the assumption by the computer operating system designers is that they don't really know what users want to do, but will give them the option anyway. Computers don't do anything without computer Programmers. It is the user which makes things 'productive', where 'productive' is entirely up to the users' free will to decide to use the computer to do something. A…

I agree that computers are designed for open-ended productivity, but multitasking is simply dead-ended productivity. Because of the way our brains work, it serves no purpose at all, and stifles any kind of serious work. Unless your purpose is to mindlessly surf through a cesspool of information.

I don't think I agree that multitasking itself is a dead-end productivity sink. Its necessary, sometimes, to put tasks in the background and let them complete .. where this goes wrong is when its used as a reason to ignore other tasks. That, again, is up to the user.

Re: Computers Are Not Designed for Productivity

#65

Post by fit2rule »

_xnmw wrote: post #21
fit2rule wrote: post #14

Computers are designed for open-ended productivity, where the assumption by the computer operating system designers is that they don't really know what users want to do, but will give them the option anyway. Computers don't do anything without computer Programmers. It is the user which makes things 'productive', where 'productive' is entirely up to the users' free will to decide to use the computer to do something. A…

I agree that computers are designed for open-ended productivity, but multitasking is simply dead-ended productivity. Because of the way our brains work, it serves no purpose at all, and stifles any kind of serious work. Unless your purpose is to mindlessly surf through a cesspool of information.

I don't think I agree that multitasking itself is a dead-end productivity sink. Its necessary, sometimes, to put tasks in the background and let them complete .. where this goes wrong is when its used as a reason to ignore other tasks. That, again, is up to the user.

Re: Computers Are Not Designed for Productivity

#66

Post by fit2rule »

_xnmw wrote: post #21
fit2rule wrote: post #14

Computers are designed for open-ended productivity, where the assumption by the computer operating system designers is that they don't really know what users want to do, but will give them the option anyway. Computers don't do anything without computer Programmers. It is the user which makes things 'productive', where 'productive' is entirely up to the users' free will to decide to use the computer to do something. A…

I agree that computers are designed for open-ended productivity, but multitasking is simply dead-ended productivity. Because of the way our brains work, it serves no purpose at all, and stifles any kind of serious work. Unless your purpose is to mindlessly surf through a cesspool of information.

I don't think I agree that multitasking itself is a dead-end productivity sink. Its necessary, sometimes, to put tasks in the background and let them complete .. where this goes wrong is when its used as a reason to ignore other tasks. That, again, is up to the user.

Re: Computers Are Not Designed for Productivity

#67

Post by cthalupa »

This article pigeonholes you into the idea that long term focus on a single task is the only form of productivity.

Not all jobs are the same. When I'm writing, I block everything out but the writing prompt, occasionally backing out to open up character/location/backstory notes. When I'm writing a bash or python script, I do much the same. Full screen my terminal, open up vi, and don't leave it until I'm done or have other matters to attend to. And the same with when I'm learning something - I have my study materials, and that's it. (Though, I'm weird and still prefer physical books for learning stuff, so I might not have a computer near me at all, despite "pleasure" reading being almost 100% done on my kindle)

But most of the time I'm on the job, I am not sitting there with singular focus on one window. I'm not a professional author or developer. Multitasking - whether or not humans are good at it - makes up a huge portion of my day to day time. I have the general projects I have to work on, but I'm also an escalation point - I have to keep an eye on IRC and see if anyone needs me, or has questions about anything. I have to keep my eye on my email for similar reasons. I have to be signed in to our other office communication systems that other departments use in case they need to get ahold of me, or connect me with a customer. etc etc etc. For me, being productive much of the time precisely means I need to be bouncing my focus all over the place and be juggling multiple things at once.

I get the overall point, and agree with it for many cases, but there are plenty of jobs out there where having a lot of different information feeds presented to you at once is part of how you attain productivity.

Re: Computers Are Not Designed for Productivity

#68

Post by a3n »

gizmo686 wrote: post #63
a3n wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I confess tiling envy. I try them out every year or two, but I generally abandon them because I can't get comfort functions to work, especially managing power, sleeping, hibernation and the lid, and key management. These things generally/often come with the more mainstream window managers, so I've never had to figure them out (and don't seem to be able to with twms). I remember looking for solutions to power for awes…

You can try using a tiling window manager with in a more traditional desktop environment. I think Awesome has a wiki article on running Gnome with Awesome as the WM.

Thanks, tried that. As I recall it did help with things like power, but I had issues, since forgotten.

As it happens, I am right now using i3 4.7.2, installed last night from linuxmint's repositories. I'm trying to use just i3, along with whatever i3's package recommended.

So far so good. But it didn't sleep last night, the screen just blanked. At least it's Saturday. :)

Re: Computers Are Not Designed for Productivity

#69

Post by dllthomas »

a3n wrote: post #56
GuiA wrote: post #5

I have a Linux laptop on which I run a tiling window manager (in my case, Xmonad), and nothing else. No system tray, no quick launch bar, nothing. (if you're not familiar with tiling window managers, they're window managers in which windows are arranged automatically to a) fully occupy the screen and b) never overlap. They're extremely customizable, but typically you'll have a vertical half of your screen with a main…

I confess tiling envy. I try them out every year or two, but I generally abandon them because I can't get comfort functions to work, especially managing power, sleeping, hibernation and the lid, and key management. These things generally/often come with the more mainstream window managers, so I've never had to figure them out (and don't seem to be able to with twms). I remember looking for solutions to power for awes…

I've been using a tiling window manager for some while now, and this was definitely a pain point for some while. Subjectively, it has recently got better, though I don't know whether it will be better enough for your needs.

FWIW, I use ratpoison on Ubuntu on my laptop, and used ratpoison on Debian on my work desktop at my last position.

Re: Computers Are Not Designed for Productivity

#70

Post by dllthomas »

Animats wrote: post #9

The author may be on to something with the line "A popup notification that runs without concern for what the user is doing is hostile behavior. Notice how there's no API in any OS for "is now a good time to interrupt the user?". Maybe there should be." Notifications could be deferred while the user is actively typing. When the user goes idle, deferred notifications can be displayed. This becomes more important as mor…

I've been wanting to put together a notification daemon that lets me batch notifications based on priority (and also review a history of recent notifications).
Post reply on HN