tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704551.post112915489056001658..comments2023-06-16T08:36:30.489-04:00Comments on Shiny Things Distract Us: Impatient, Lazy and StupidFraxashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01250589389977400643noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704551.post-1132149204595207492005-11-16T08:53:00.000-05:002005-11-16T08:53:00.000-05:00My point, Mantaworks, was that computers are *hard...My point, Mantaworks, was that computers are *harder* to learn than cars -- and that they should be as easy to learn as cars are. Even -- no, ESPECIALLY -- for me.<BR/><BR/>Was that point not clear?Fraxashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01250589389977400643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704551.post-1132147568928183162005-11-16T08:26:00.000-05:002005-11-16T08:26:00.000-05:00"Think about your users as impatient, lazy and stu...<I>"Think about your users as impatient, lazy and stupid and you'll build a better product."</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>Yeah, that's what windows does. And it is lauded over the whole world as the best OS ever.<BR/><BR/>You think learning computers was easier? Because you know, computers are far more complex than cars. No. You know computers so well because you liked learning it, wich has nothing to do with you being lazy or stupid and has no basis as an example for your better product analysis. <BR/><BR/>Knowing how stuff works under the hood is something you do not want as a general user; you want it work according to your needs and expectations. If it's doing something you don't get, it's the things fault and not yours.<BR/><BR/>Read up on some Interaction Design, wich is excellent at adressing these issues and getting it right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704551.post-1129575045424636492005-10-17T14:50:00.000-04:002005-10-17T14:50:00.000-04:00I'm reminded of Clarke's law, and the tongue-in-ch...I'm reminded of Clarke's law, and the tongue-in-cheek corollary:<BR/><BR/>Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.<BR/><BR/>So I'm saying in the actual post that because people are impatient, lazy and stupid, technology should work like magic in the sense that it shouldn't require brainpower from its users. And you're saying in your first comment that technology should not work like magic, in the sense that its principles of operation shouldn't be mysterious.<BR/><BR/>I think both are true.Fraxashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01250589389977400643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704551.post-1129574136483429412005-10-17T14:35:00.000-04:002005-10-17T14:35:00.000-04:00Computers are an incredibly interesting example be...Computers are an incredibly interesting example because they are just about the most complex technology you can cite. Microprocessors have become so complicated these days that there is no single individual who understands absolutely everything that is going on under the hood. Frankly, it <STRONG>has</STRONG> to be that way since the CPU you're using was designed by an R&D department several tens of thousands of employees strong, consisting of departement after sub-department and so on. <BR/><BR/>I agree that it isn't strictly necessary for an end-user to comprehend the meaning and purpose of every single node and branch in the wiring diagram for all the hojillion logical elements in a computer chip. Such a feat would be impossible, because not only are these devices designed by enormous mini-cities of engineers, the engineers themselves use software and computers to <STRONG>design</STRONG> . . . more software and computers. We've well passed that stage in the game of iterations where the technology shapes itself in a design and conceptual sense, thus lifting it outside of the realm of human comprehension.<BR/><BR/>So if a chip-designer can't hope to fully understand the inner workings of his product, how can the end-user hope to do so? That's not the issue. Like you said, it isn't important that the user understand how the machine works, but that he or she understands how-to-understand-how it works. As in, if everyone was schooled with a very basic grasp of logic architecture and programming, end-users would at least appreciate that computer technology does not function by magic.Pharaohmagnetichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16651794068039224711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704551.post-1129557350720589042005-10-17T09:55:00.000-04:002005-10-17T09:55:00.000-04:00Good point about the health of society. That said...Good point about the health of society. That said, I still don't think that I'm better off knowing how to fix a car, even when I'm broken down in Death Valley. What I really want, in that case, is the ability to learn precisely enough to fix my car.<BR/><BR/>The state of the art of computer technology is such that you need to be an acolyte of the First Church of the Microprocessor to have any idea at all what the black box under your desk is actually doing. Computers are mysterious. I think <STRONG>that</STRONG> is what has to change: even if they still stay impenetrable, even if someone never actually does WANT to know how their computer works, they should be confident that they COULD learn what's going on in there. (that's the state I'm in, since I <STRONG>am</STRONG> an acolyte of the aforementioned church. well, and I have an inflated sense of my own capabilities.)<BR/><BR/>my point: discoverability. And we're a long way from that, with computers.Fraxashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01250589389977400643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704551.post-1129556752721316612005-10-17T09:45:00.000-04:002005-10-17T09:45:00.000-04:00Well put.This issue highlights an interesting dich...Well put.<BR/><BR/>This issue highlights an interesting dichotomy in modern technological society. If an innovation is to succeed in the marketplace, it needs to be understandable to the point that its inner workings are a "black box." To continue your analogy, in days gone by, manufacturers assumed that every automobile-owner was a partial hobbyist and could go about changing the oil or replacing a fan belt. Now, your average car-owner is a busy parent of 2.5 children who can't bother with such things.<BR/><BR/>Similarly, the success of the personal computer only blossomed when graphical user interfaces and other such "user-friendly" innovations brought the technology from the bithead to the average consumer.<BR/><BR/>But!<BR/><BR/>It is still an incredibly prudent thing to learn as much as possible about a technology that one will be using (let alone depending upon). The end-user who can repair a car will be much better off if his or her car breaks down in Death Valley. Similarly, individuals who are schooled in basic computer architecture and programming --even if they choose not to enter the industry as a career-- will have an advantage when they employ computers in whatever walk of life they enjoy. Furthermore, on the aggregate level, a widespread increase of basic computer knowledge would strengthen the health of internet.<BR/><BR/>So summed up, the dichotomy is as follows: For a technology to survive in the society, it is better to conceal its inner-workings and reduce the end-user's need to understand it. But society itself will more strongly survive the more we are all educated about the inner workings of technology.Pharaohmagnetichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16651794068039224711noreply@blogger.com