251–260 of 272 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As a complete nerd, you'd think maybe I'd like that I can prove my skills like this, but it comes off as deeply disrespectful to me as the user that I can't disable this. You seem to have understood the problem. But then you didn't follow. If there was a way to disable this, first thing that the grandma would do is watch a video how to disable that and lose security from then on. Of course it is not perfect, but th…
you really underestimate the will of people to not change anything that annoys them about their OS. they will click 1 million times a popup away before even considering that it could be resolved indefinitely by an option change. i think Apple's system works well to keep the average user safe.
I find this reasoning backward. I have been saying what you just said for years, in defense of NOT making changes a giant pain in the ass for knowledgeable users. The vast, vast majority of people will not imagine that there's an option; much less go looking for it. Therefore if the user goes digging around in Settings, everything should be there all the time, with no further hassles required.
By the same logic, a lot of Apple's recent decisions are anti-user stupidity. For example, removing the "Get new mail" button from Mail. If my mom tries to log into her bank account and the site says "We just sent a confirmation code to your E-mail," she's going to go there and try to fetch mail. But nope... now she has to sit there and wait for it to poll the server at some unknown interval.
Apologists rush to say, "Oh but you can simply customize the toolbar and put it back." NO. Give me a break. Why on earth would the average user even imagine that you could customize the fundamental UI of the application, let alone figure out where to perform that task? It's so out of touch with real-world users.
I’m convinced that the biggest threat to good UIs are the majority of professional UI designers. Think of it this way… Half of all UI designers are below the median. These people chose UI design as a career. You don’t advance your career by simply defending the status quo year after year. To advance you need to design something new. So, you do. You do whether whatever was there before is working well or not. Because…
There's a lot of lip service paid to each, but not a lot of real consideration for them, because that's not what will win in a portfolio at interview or in a deck for your leadership. We end up strongly self-selecting against those things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I make a version of this happen with Aerospace on macOS.
For anyone wondering, you can use Aerospace purely as a workspace switching solution without the tiling: https://www.boronine.com/2025/02/09/Instant-Workspace-Switch...
I wish macos for more serious about window management, it's extremely limited out of the box.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should she be allowed or forbidden from doing so?
I think it's reasonably within scope of the threat models considered by operating system creators.
I can put that more charitably by thinking about it in terms of informed consent, ie does the user understand the risks involved. But if you're concerned that someone following a video tutorial or seeking out a friend has not consented, then I think your standard for what constitutes consent is ludicrously high!
And if it turns out that lots of people are consenting to something, that isn't a failure of design. You asked your users a question, and they gave you an answer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's reasonably within scope of the threat models considered by operating system creators.
I still don't understand the threat. Is it that a user who is not "worthy" of more permissive security may nonetheless be capable of enabling more permissive security? I can put that more charitably by thinking about it in terms of informed consent, ie does the user understand the risks involved. But if you're concerned that someone following a video tutorial or seeking out a friend has not consented, then I think yo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still don't understand the threat. Is it that a user who is not "worthy" of more permissive security may nonetheless be capable of enabling more permissive security? I can put that more charitably by thinking about it in terms of informed consent, ie does the user understand the risks involved. But if you're concerned that someone following a video tutorial or seeking out a friend has not consented, then I think yo…
The threat is that users who are not sufficiently tech savvy will shoot themselves in the foot, including using methods they don't understand. This is a pattern we've seen play out numerous times. The more secure platforms are overwhelmingly the ones that protect the users from themselves, and (most) users value security over absolute computing freedom.
More secure by what metric? I would expect that by definition, they are equally secure until the security settings are disabled. If the user disabled a security setting, of course that system is less secure, that's a choice the user made in exchange for some other benefit.
> (most) users value security over absolute computing freedom.
How do you know this? I think that if they're disabling security settings, it's probably because they value freedom/capabilities over security. And you may think this is the wrong choice, but it's theirs to make.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right, it is a big assumption, but it's not unfounded. I've worked at F50 companies and founded my own startup. It's a lot easier to get two really great designers from the far right side of the bell curve when you're a small startup. As an organization reaches even 1000 people, you're now starting to draw from the middle of the bell curve. In fact, you have to. If you try to hire only from the far right of th…
On the other hand, just working at big tech doesn't mean you are especially great. Conformance and criteria other than raw skill matter. As you say, promotion games, etc... I would just lump all of that under conformance. So, you aren't wrong. However, why startups outperform big companies isn't just the skill gap. Even if you have the most amazing leadership in big tech it is monumentally difficult to move the needl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still don't understand the threat. Is it that a user who is not "worthy" of more permissive security may nonetheless be capable of enabling more permissive security? I can put that more charitably by thinking about it in terms of informed consent, ie does the user understand the risks involved. But if you're concerned that someone following a video tutorial or seeking out a friend has not consented, then I think yo…
The threat is that users who are not sufficiently tech savvy will shoot themselves in the foot, including using methods they don't understand. This is a pattern we've seen play out numerous times. The more secure platforms are overwhelmingly the ones that protect the users from themselves, and (most) users value security over absolute computing freedom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, it always seems weird to me how we deem most adults responsible enough to own a car and not drive into oncoming traffic or how people are allowed to buy actually dangerous tools from big tool stores without a second glance. And sure, there's safety training available and in the case of driving you gotta first prove you're able to follow the rules. But after that? You're on your own, only in computer land do the…
That isn't true at all. To attack your specific example, cars have added all kinds of things that "hand hold" the user and keep them (and others) safe: Seat belts, air bags, anti-lock brakes, traction control, automatic emergency braking, back up cameras, lane keep assist, blind spot monitors, etc, etc, etc. (Oh, and guess what, per-mile traffic deaths are WAY down from a few decades ago).