Developer Experience: Fundamentally harder than normal UX

Post by 3pt14159 » Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 3:02 PM UTC

vsareto wrote: post #62

rolleiflex wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a designer [0] and an engineer — you'll take my shell from my cold, dead hands. There are two issues here: a) Designers trying to simplify everything beyond usefulness is a good instinct gone haywire. Simplification helps, but without an understanding of accidental complexity versus essential complexity, one is bound to end up painted into a corner with no flexibility left in the app. Few designers understand thi…

>An engineer's operating environment, OS, IDE, shell, terminal, is a reflection of the inside of his or her mind writ large. Shout out to the people that don't really bother because they're good enough to adapt to any setup. :)

Post by meddlepal » Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 3:06 PM UTC

ailideex wrote: post #9

kurnikas wrote: post #4

> We've simply gotten used to them: Dealing with the idiosyncracies of bash, vi, or the JavaScript type system This stuck out to me, there seems to be a trend in UX/UI where any move away from the "simplest path" is seen as a huge negative. Could it be the case that we use these tools (especially UI patterns like vi) because after the learning curve the give a huge amount of value? It seems like we are assuming that…

Maybe a bit unrelated, I got used to Windows 2000, then window XP, then Gnome 2, then Gnome 3 came. So I stuck with Gnome 2, then moved to XFCE, and now with RHEL 8 I had to use Gnome 3 because there were no other options. Gnome 3 is an absolute horror show. I don't know who made it, for who, and what the theory behind it is but I don't see how it would be easier to use for someone non technical, my parents both unde…

Post by meddlepal » Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 3:10 PM UTC

alxlaz wrote: post #19

Far from me to defend every UI of every development tool out there but I think statements like these, and their illustration, could benefit from some explanation for those of us who are not designers: > We coders still put up with horrid UX/UI when programming. which is illustrated with a screenshot from Visual Studio... .NET 2002, I think, judging by the application icon? Setting aside the relevance of a 20-year old…

Post by inetknght » Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 3:29 PM UTC

adamkl wrote: post #32

kurnikas wrote: post #4

> We've simply gotten used to them: Dealing with the idiosyncracies of bash, vi, or the JavaScript type system This stuck out to me, there seems to be a trend in UX/UI where any move away from the "simplest path" is seen as a huge negative. Could it be the case that we use these tools (especially UI patterns like vi) because after the learning curve the give a huge amount of value? It seems like we are assuming that…

Rich Hickey has a pretty interesting take on this very topic where he compares programming languages to instruments, and how instruments aren’t for beginners. How it takes work to become good at playing an instrument, and how that isn’t a bad thing. > But look at this guitar player with blisters. A harpist has blisters, a base player with blisters. There's this barrier to overcome for every musician. Imagine if you d…

Post by grovesNL » Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 3:39 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #61

meagain3 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So just anybody can call themselves engineer?, don't you realize this is a disservice to the actual engineers?

Yes. You may not like it. I may not even like it but everyone from people who drive trains to technicians in lots of areas use the title. Furthermore, tons of experienced working engineers outside of software don't have PEs. They're just not needed in a lot of contexts. Edit: I'm referring mostly to the US. Licensing bodies in some places (perhaps including some US states) may say that only licensed engineers can be…