Jan DMaking users go through configuration steps because providing working defaults is "limiting user freedom" is a rather particular idea of freedom.
Maybe more accurately: Configuring yourself is freedom (cause you do it), not needing to configure is limiting freedom (since someone else suggested the default which is not seen as legit).
Is there something interesting in this or should it be filed at "heroic individualism mapped to a glittering generality?"
Sven Puschmann@simulo I vote for the latter. This reminds me of the "Jetway test" in Alan Cooper's book "The inmates are running the asylum". Some people always prefer to have full control over each single setting and others prefer to simplify their thinking and have confidence in the default settings. (1/2)
@simulo To that developer: The UX rule #1 is "You are not the user" - so stop burdening users with thousands of settings because you consider this your freedom. Unless users are bored or in a playful mood, they use software to achieve their goal, not to play with fancy settings and enjoy a developer's particular notion of freedom. (2/2)
@spu also interesting that the status quo is never in question, even if it is limiting user freedom.
Matches the »rugged individualism« (Ensmenger) of programmer culture that uses »dislike of activities involving human interaction« as source of authority. And figuring out compromises and priorities very much needs human interaction.
Matches the »rugged individualism« (Ensmenger) of programmer culture that uses »dislike of activities involving human interaction« as source of authority. And figuring out compromises and priorities very much needs human interaction.