Havard Havard
Eugen RochkoWhen I was growing up, we had operating systems that exposed a lot of the technical details about their inner workings, and websites that let us use code to customize them, like MySpace and Geocities. UX designers in tech have since optimized away most of the stuff that allowed and encouraged people to learn to use technology and now people get confused by files and browser tabs. And as the knowledge shrinks, more and more things have to be simplified away. I only ever see it as a one way road.
Oliver D. Reithmaier@Gargron that's because you're technically proficient.
@odr_k4tana And why am I technically proficient? It is because of what was available for me to play with when I was growing up. Something no longer available to newer generations.
@Gargron nope. That digital behaviourism stuff is not true. You are/were interested in it and actively pursued it. Contrary to the average Mastodon user's beliefs (apparently), most people are not inherently interested in tech. They use it, but hate having to deal with it.
The main driver of adopting tech is utility and usability. This is why vibe coding is so big. You don't have to work for a product (let's set aside quality issues for now).
The computing revolution was mainly driven by modern GUIs and OS that made computers easy to use without programming language knowledge.
We mistake usability for the enemy because it's often the same companies that made it easy in the first place that are now enshittifying the product because they hit a plateau in terms of usability while being under pressure to grow.
thief_of_fire@odr_k4tana @Gargron I mean you're both painting with too broad of strokes in your generalizations and missing wide swathes of populations while neither of you is technically wrong about the specific users you're talking about. Usability is a spectrum and creating a one-size-fits-all UX is an antipattern no matter how much or little it abstracts away decision making possibilities from the user.
Open standards, data, and interoperability enable these experiences for the whole spectrum. MySpace was a great example because you didn't have to understand HTML/CSS to use it, but if you wanted to understand it then you could use it to personalize your page, if you didn't care one bit about learning any of it but still wanted to personalize your page then it opened a market for templates and style generators with better usability, and if you had no interest in any of that then the app was no less usable.
@thief_of_fire @Gargron usability is a spectrum in terms of "how hard is it to use", but that is always connected to task completion. Customisation is nice and may be important to some users, but only to a certain technical level. What you're describing is mainly a function of two things: target audience and investment volume. Customisation options require higher investment. If you want a broad audience but want to be cost-efficient, there will be less options to customise.
@odr_k4tana that's such an absurd perspective 😂 @Gargron
@thief_of_fire @Gargron rephrased it.
Edit here too: this is btw also relevant in security UX. Depending on your target audience, you may enable informative security for technical users (more explanations about what the software is doing) or less for people who find it confusing (invisible security) and just want to use it for specific purposes other than security.
Messenger security is very interesting in that regard.
You can never build perfect systems for everybody, that's a given. But if you want your thing to work for as many as possible and get used (!), you need to consider majority needs first. Whether you implement minority wishes later is up to many other factors.
MySpace was probably great (never used it), but it also had the advantage of being the first big SSN.
The growth of Facebook (as much as I hate meta) shows how different concepts can outperform others if they apply radical usability focused on majority users.
Epic Null@odr_k4tana @thief_of_fire @Gargron I feel like this is where:
Garon is right to call out exposure to the technical as a contributing factor to developing interest and literacy. Opportunity helps develop interests!
But you are also right that most people do not care or want to know. They just want to complete the task at hand!
Balancing the two is a hard problem, but I would like to bring the focus onto the parts of our experience that are less usable, presumably in the name of usability. Places where you can't handle odd situations becase they are not the easy ones, and thus are not supported. Places where "It just works" becomes "Okay it didn't work. What do I do about that"
Thoralf Will@thief_of_fire @odr_k4tana @Gargron I disagree.
The biggest issue of the whole Fediverse is usability.
Functionality is mostly fine, but usability is a big problem here.
How do I know? Because I see it every day. My wife is somewhat interested but still hasn't gotten the hang of it - because it requires technical knowledge she is not willing to acquire. And she shouldn't have to.
There is no such thing as "Too much usability."
But often there is "Too little usability."
Deb E.@thief_of_fire Different people and different stages of life. I used to type up HTML webpages from scratch. I learned CSS for a little while. But my life has since become full of non-tech stuff (plus the technical level I need now has far outstripped my skill or time available to learn). I'm super grateful that one of my sons is getting into building & running servers. I don't know if he'll ever get into code, & there won't be low level paid opportunities to learn. I was fortunate to get paid by one of my lecturers to convert the webpages he'd generated in PowerPoint into light weight HTML that could work over slow modems, which pushed me to learn animated gif creation. Where would such opportunities be now?
Tara L. Campbell@debe @thief_of_fire @odr_k4tana @Gargron
This. It's hard to take commentary from childless singles and DINKS in tech seriously when they do not factor in the caregiving and responsibility load of the average non-tech worker:
*Kids
*Aging parents
*Careers outside of tech
*Social circles outside of tech
*Community/volunteer work
*etc. other commitments/responsibilities
I know many intelligent people who are dead exhausted at the end of the day. Offloading the tech stuff is a legit need.
George Saich@odr_k4tana @Gargron
I remember in 1980 thinking I might be wasting my time programming because it was getting so easy I assumed everyone would be doing it soon and there would be no future in it. What I did not account for is most people could do it, but didn't want to.
The thing vibe coding is missing is the same thing the 4GL and GUI revolution missed. If Bob in Accounting whips up a useful app that gets adopted. Bob the Accountant is on the hook for supporting it forever. Good luck Bob.
I remember in 1980 thinking I might be wasting my time programming because it was getting so easy I assumed everyone would be doing it soon and there would be no future in it. What I did not account for is most people could do it, but didn't want to.
The thing vibe coding is missing is the same thing the 4GL and GUI revolution missed. If Bob in Accounting whips up a useful app that gets adopted. Bob the Accountant is on the hook for supporting it forever. Good luck Bob.
Poul-Henning Kamp
Jonathan Lamothe@odr_k4tana @Gargron Yes, it's necessary to have an interest. It's also necessary to have the tools to explore that interest readily available. More and more, consumer device manufacturers are doing their damndest to deny people the latter.
They call this "progress".
I would likely not have learned to program if I grew up today.
Wolfgang@odr_k4tana
@Gargron My parents come from a generation of people who had to learn to do their own stuff – you had to be a bit of a carpenter, a bit of a plumber, a bit of a car mechanic, a bit of a farmer, a bit of a tailor. It wasn't a question of pride or hobby or interests, it was a quesiton of self-reliance and survival – most people didn't have the means to bring their clothes to a professional tailor or drop their car off for an oil change.
In my generation, people had to learn how to use a computer and fix some common problems – yes, even people who weren't interested in tech or programming. Not knowing how to use a computer was akin to not being able to drive a car – it meant that you were always dependent on somebody else to help you.
My problem with modern computer interfaces is not that they're making things too accessible – my problem is that this simplicity comes at a cost. You can only obfuscate and dumb things down to a certain point before basically making it so that using your product doesn't require the user to have even the most basic knowledge of computer interfaces.
Before you know it, you've raised a generation of people who don't know how to fix the simplest of issues with their software (let alone hardware). If "reinstalling Windows" was the oil change of my generation (you could probably do it, but it's messy, and you don't have the time), people who grew up with modern dumbed down mobile OSes would have their car towed because they left the handbrake on, and when told, would ask you "what's a handbrake?".
Yes, learning how to work with computers takes time and effort, it requires learning a new skill – but so does everything in life – reading a book, cooking, driving a car, playnig a videogame. I think eliminating any possible friction and asking nothing of the user in terms of skill, just because "not everyone is interested in tech, people just want to get on with their life" is akin to refusing to learn how to cook or drive. It makes you dependent, and in our isolated and lonely modern world, most likely you will be dependent on big tech companies like DoorDash and Uber (and with computing – Google, Anthropic and OpenAI), rather than your family and friends. Personal computers are as ubiquitous and crucial in our lives as food and transport, and in my opinion, there's no getting around it – you *have* to learn it whether it's your interest or not, just for the sake of survival.
Morgan ⚧️@odr_k4tana @Gargron seconding at least "You are/were interested in it and actively pursued it." I had no more access to tech than the average lower middle class kid who grew up in the 2000s, and mostly had no idea how computers worked until my Twitter circles offered Mastodon as a liferaft, and then my fedi circles offered Linux, and then I had Tech Issues that I kept having to look up and solve. I sought a path away from the technofascism I was raised in and I found it--others can do the same.
Robotistry@odr_k4tana @Gargron I have been and continue to be interested in tech. I miss the customization options for the early Macs - delicate blue and white menu bar detailing and even special patterns for scroll bars.
But I have long covid, and every time someone pushes a user interface change I get pounding headaches from trying to adapt to it.
I cannot emphasize how much I wish someone would build a device whose user interface changes were guaranteed to happen *only* when there were *no* alternatives and whose feature updates consisted of "we fixed some broken stuff on the back end, no new functions that aren't opt-in, we promise."
I crave a non-existent utopian world where I can buy an electronic device that's the equivalent of a multimeter: I pay once, and I swap out the batteries occasionally, and I use it until I don't need it any more, and *nothing about it changes*.
Ra
Gabriel Viso Carrera@odr_k4tana yeah, being technically proficient is not an innate trait like being tall. @Gargron is technically proficient because he was given challenging opportunities and took his time. There are things to be given to younger generations, but the number of those more closed "normative choices" is a lot higher and the system is making them mandatory for a lot of processes.
AJ Sadauskas@gabriel @odr_k4tana @Gargron In the '80s, early home computers booted straight into BASIC.
To do anything, even load your space invaders clone off cassette, you had to learn a BASIC command. And to make it do anything really fancy, you had to peek and poke around chip registers on the bare metal hardware.
The printed manuals included BASIC commands and programs.
Seriously, the Commodore 64 and the ZX Spectrum and the Apple 2 were the best kids' coding teaching tools in history.
Kids learnt to code.
In the '90s, computers had a graphical representation of a file system.
And with PCs, open PCs meant you could upgrade your computer's CPU or RAM or graphics card or sound card or hard disk.
Kids learnt about computer hardware and data storage.
In the 2000s, building your own website meant learning HTML. And there were sites like GeoCities, Angrlfire, and Tripod where you could build a website for free.
Kids learnt how to code websites.
So even before they got to university, those Gen X and Millennial IT kids already had a practical knowledge of the basics.
How software works. Hardware basics. Data storage basics. Coding basics.
Kids got technically proficient because they typed in the game that was printed in the magazine about their home micro this month. Or they installed a better graphics card and more RAM to play Quake. Or they created a Blink 182 fan page on GeoCities.
These days? Here's your sealed box. Here's your app. Here's where you enter your prompt.
You can't see how it works, upgrade it, you can't modify it, you can't tinker with it.
Let's see how that works out long term.
To do anything, even load your space invaders clone off cassette, you had to learn a BASIC command. And to make it do anything really fancy, you had to peek and poke around chip registers on the bare metal hardware.
The printed manuals included BASIC commands and programs.
Seriously, the Commodore 64 and the ZX Spectrum and the Apple 2 were the best kids' coding teaching tools in history.
Kids learnt to code.
In the '90s, computers had a graphical representation of a file system.
And with PCs, open PCs meant you could upgrade your computer's CPU or RAM or graphics card or sound card or hard disk.
Kids learnt about computer hardware and data storage.
In the 2000s, building your own website meant learning HTML. And there were sites like GeoCities, Angrlfire, and Tripod where you could build a website for free.
Kids learnt how to code websites.
So even before they got to university, those Gen X and Millennial IT kids already had a practical knowledge of the basics.
How software works. Hardware basics. Data storage basics. Coding basics.
Kids got technically proficient because they typed in the game that was printed in the magazine about their home micro this month. Or they installed a better graphics card and more RAM to play Quake. Or they created a Blink 182 fan page on GeoCities.
These days? Here's your sealed box. Here's your app. Here's where you enter your prompt.
You can't see how it works, upgrade it, you can't modify it, you can't tinker with it.
Let's see how that works out long term.
Janne Moren@aj @gabriel @odr_k4tana @Gargron
Just to be clear: a subset of kids learned. Most kids bounced right off that interface and never returned.
Just to be clear: a subset of kids learned. Most kids bounced right off that interface and never returned.
@jannem @aj @odr_k4tana @Gargron that's more or less my point indeed.
I can open a computer and do all that that I did in the 80s, 90s and 2000s, but it's not a requisite anymore,... until it is. So there's less incentives to learn. Kids don't need to learn to code to use a computer. Yet they still can. But they have to be educated about the value of learning for the sake of it, and put the time and effort on it instead of doomscrolling.
Like we tinkered instead of doing whatever else.
@gabriel @aj @odr_k4tana @Gargron
My point is, most kids were never interested and didn't learn, no matter how much you pushed a technical interface on them. The computer "revolution" of the 1980s only ever touched a geeky subset of mostly boys.
For all that people hate on locked, "dumbed down" interfaces, those enable the large majority of people to make use of computers. Just like cars only became mass transport when you no longer had to be a mechanic to drive one.
@jannem @aj @odr_k4tana @Gargron that is also true.
Sadly, nowadays we're in a situation where people don't know how to use a computer or internet without the walled gardens and they feel the downsides of them.
Then, instead of acknowledging their past decisions and do something about it should they wanted something better, some feel like they are victims and that tech savviness is somehow inherited / magically effortlesly acquired.
@jannem @aj @odr_k4tana @Gargron I'm also a victim of cars. I prefer walking and public transport, never asked for cars to be so prevalent.
Yet, if the system makes me need a car but I don't want enshittificated subscription features or proprietary maintenance locked-down procedures, I know I have to go for a less convenient option.
If I go and buy a black box in wheels connected to the developer servers on a monthly subscription I need to own the consequences of my choices.
@gabriel @aj @odr_k4tana @Gargron
People dislike subscription pricing; and car makers are getting a lot of pushback for that.
But cars as a black box? Absolutely. If I ever have to open the hood something has gone terribly wrong. A car to me - and to most people - is an appliance. A fridge is a device that keeps our food fresh. A car is a device that takes me to work. I don't want to care about what's going on inside, I just want it to work. Computers are the same for most people.
@jannem @gabriel @odr_k4tana @Gargron Cars and home appliances that can't be repaired is a horrendous idea.
It means if even one component has an issue, the whole thing needs to be replaced.
It means you might need to replace the whole thing at the manufacturer's whim.
It means you need to pay them an economic rent to use the thing you have already purchased off them.
That's great for corporations. For customers? Not so much.
It means if even one component has an issue, the whole thing needs to be replaced.
It means you might need to replace the whole thing at the manufacturer's whim.
It means you need to pay them an economic rent to use the thing you have already purchased off them.
That's great for corporations. For customers? Not so much.
@aj @gabriel @odr_k4tana @Gargron
I fully agree everything should be repairable. And recyclable and repurposable if at all possible.
But I also believe I should not have to care about it personally if I don't want to. I want any local repair person to be able to repair my car, or fridge, or washing machine. I don't want to have to know how to do it myself, and I want the design to need as little in the way of hands-on fixing as possible.
For a lot of people that list includes computers.
@jannem @gabriel @odr_k4tana @Gargron You still benefit from a system being open and repairable, even if you never repair or tinker with it yourself.
If an appliance or a car or a computer is closed, and it breaks down or had an issue, you really only have two choices. Take it back to the manufacturer for repairs, of replace it.
If it's open, then you can take it to your choice of third-party repairers.
If the closed system can be repaired or upgraded at all, you're limited to the parts that are authorised by the manufacturer. Usually at a hefty markup.
With an open system, you can take it to a repair shop of your choice for repairs and upgrades. And that shop can offer you third-party replacement parts and upgrades.
And then with a closed system, once the manufacturer decides its time for planned obsolescence, your system is e-waste.
With an open system, even if they try that, you can potentially circumvent that. Think installing a deGoogled Android OS on a smartphone.
And here's the important part. If you have the skills and expertise, you can maintain it yourself. But if you don't, you can still get a friend or relative to help, or take it to your choice of third party repair shop.
If an appliance or a car or a computer is closed, and it breaks down or had an issue, you really only have two choices. Take it back to the manufacturer for repairs, of replace it.
If it's open, then you can take it to your choice of third-party repairers.
If the closed system can be repaired or upgraded at all, you're limited to the parts that are authorised by the manufacturer. Usually at a hefty markup.
With an open system, you can take it to a repair shop of your choice for repairs and upgrades. And that shop can offer you third-party replacement parts and upgrades.
And then with a closed system, once the manufacturer decides its time for planned obsolescence, your system is e-waste.
With an open system, even if they try that, you can potentially circumvent that. Think installing a deGoogled Android OS on a smartphone.
And here's the important part. If you have the skills and expertise, you can maintain it yourself. But if you don't, you can still get a friend or relative to help, or take it to your choice of third party repair shop.
@aj , I do not argue against being open or repairable. Those are unambiguously good things.
The start of the thread was about old-time computers and their CLI/Basic interfaces, and how they directly expose the system internals.
I argue that this is *bad* for most potential users. Most people need interfaces that let you use things without being a hobbyist or engineer. Today's abstract UIs are what let regular people use computers at all. And that is good.
@gabriel @odr_k4tana @Gargron @aj
To be clear: I argue against a nostalgia-driven desire to return to the kind of simple interfaces we had in microcomputers before the desktop and mobile UIs completely swallowed it up.
And I argue *in favour* of the abstract, containerized systems exemplified by Android; that finally let non-technical people use computers without fear and anxiety.
None of that is in necessary opposition to *also* being open, repairable and hackable! Two different things.
@jannem @odr_k4tana @Gargron @aj that was pretty clear, at least for me.
I don't argue either against being user-friendly and I don't criticize people that choose not to learn about computer internals ans doodads.
I'm just demanding a bit of ownership for everybody around their past choices and priorities when it comes to ask for help, and be self-consciuos of the "I don't know about computers because I never cared" instead of "I'm owed help because I'm special".
@gabriel @odr_k4tana @Gargron @aj
I think the Steam Deck is a positive example:
You start in Steam, with your games, settings, store and so on. All updates are atomic and safe. You don't need to know or care how it really works.
You want to mod things, so start the desktop UI. Real desktop with terminal, but still atomic and still safe.
Unlock the read-only FS and it's *still* safeish (update the deck to revert changes).
Or install whatever OS and now you're completely on your own.
@jannem @odr_k4tana @Gargron @aj yes, I like my steam deck 
and I also like the atomic variants for computers like Bazzite or Silverblue, but they are not as good as SteamOS is for novel or nonchalant users.
and I also like the atomic variants for computers like Bazzite or Silverblue, but they are not as good as SteamOS is for novel or nonchalant users.
Simon Brooke@jannem @gabriel @odr_k4tana @Gargron @aj I understand your argument, but disagree with it.
Command line interfaces enable essentially conversational interaction with the machine, using language. Humans are exceedingly good at using language, it's our superpower.
Yes, we can devise better languages for interacting with the machine, and we should; but giving the user as much intimate access to the machine as they care to use is a good thing.
@simon_brooke @jannem @gabriel @odr_k4tana @Gargron And it's important to highlight that thr two things are not mutually exclusive.
You can provide a slick UI and also full access to the internals.
Think about Linux for a moment. You can quite comfortably use KDE or GNOME without knowing a single Linux command. Yet if you want, you can have full access to the internals.
That's very different to a lot of walled garden consumer tech these days, where all user access to the internals is blocked by design.
You can provide a slick UI and also full access to the internals.
Think about Linux for a moment. You can quite comfortably use KDE or GNOME without knowing a single Linux command. Yet if you want, you can have full access to the internals.
That's very different to a lot of walled garden consumer tech these days, where all user access to the internals is blocked by design.
@jannem @aj @odr_k4tana @Gargron for me they are more of a gray box. I know what are the main components, how they wear off and why, and I know what is meant to be reviewed and serviced any time I check the car in for service. I can't fix them but I can have an educated conversation and spot abuses to judge if I should take the car somewhere else.
The amount of people that relate to the above re. cars is overwhelmingly higher than the amount of people that know how much RAM their computer has.
the esoteric programmer@jannem @gabriel @aj @odr_k4tana @Gargron I think there's a fundamental disconnect here, we see a mutually exclusive set of constraints, but I think they, in fact, are not. We can have a simple interface without proprietary code and enshitificatory gadgets built-in. We can have a terminal side by side with a file manager. We can have a gui package updater and a terminal method of doing the same. None of this is mutually exclusive, the only entities who profit from this artificial divide are the corporations working to bring it about. Fundamentally, any open system like what we want from our computers should be able to be configured in any way the user wants, including abstracting complexity away behind a nice gui, without fundamentally changing the paradigm of the platform entirely, and any abstractions built on top of open foundations should be rollable backward so you can go back to looser restrictions if you need to in certain cases. If a system can't go back and forth between these states, then it is neither powerful, nor open. For the car example from further downthread, you don't have to know how a car works, you don't have to be a mechanic, the car has to work and drive you places, and that's fine. However, anyone who has a passion for this stuff and likes to do it should be able to roll back the abstractions and fix your car for you, without them having to work specifically at the same company from which you bought your car.
I've seen many of these threads pop up this year for whatever reason, and whenever someone writes a piece like the slow death of the power user, people will often interpret it like everyone needs to know this stuff, everyone has to be taught this stuff, or a variation of the above, and sure some of the discourse around this kinda implies it that way, but the basic premise there is that we're losing the ability to have agency when using our computers, and that agency is crucial for a lot of activism and censorship resistance. So yeah, I think in this instance, unlike many others, we can perhaps have our cake and eat it too.
I've seen many of these threads pop up this year for whatever reason, and whenever someone writes a piece like the slow death of the power user, people will often interpret it like everyone needs to know this stuff, everyone has to be taught this stuff, or a variation of the above, and sure some of the discourse around this kinda implies it that way, but the basic premise there is that we're losing the ability to have agency when using our computers, and that agency is crucial for a lot of activism and censorship resistance. So yeah, I think in this instance, unlike many others, we can perhaps have our cake and eat it too.
Ruud Steltenpool
Raymond@aj @gabriel You did learn BASIC, but I recall even the programs in the 80s still had manuals that stated how to start the program by explaining exactly what to type, thus allowing those who didn't understand basic to use the program. On some systems, bootable floppies handled this for you.
But there was still a trend towards black-boxing. BASIC disappeared some time after Windows 95, and compilers weren't standard features for computers.
@arem @aj in terms of lack of tools I don't really agree: there is always a built-in shell script that supercedes that use case for BASIC. CMD, powershell, *sh,... Not to mention that many systems include a system Python runtime and their own specific, if not proprietary, automation tools.
When it comes to lack of built-in or included documentation on the above, I do agree: since the DOS onset you don't have a printed reference included. I think it's due that CLI is no longer the default UI.
@Gargron @odr_k4tana
Eugen - I remember installing Slackware (4) from 3.5" floppies because my CDROM was not supported, and then learning how to roll my own device driver so I could used the ROM drive. It never worked quite right but I learned a lot in the process.
Eugen - I remember installing Slackware (4) from 3.5" floppies because my CDROM was not supported, and then learning how to roll my own device driver so I could used the ROM drive. It never worked quite right but I learned a lot in the process.
Zimmie@Gargron @odr_k4tana As a counterpoint, microcontrollers today are so much better and so much cheaper than they ever were in the past it’s ridiculous. People who want to learn how computers actually work have never had it so good.
Zimmie (@[email protected])
A lot of people criticize iOS and Android for making it harder to learn the low levels of how computers work. I’ve got to say, though, modern microcontrollers are so cheap and powerful it’s unreal. My first microcontroller was a 4 MHz PIC with 16 *bytes* of RAM and 256 *bytes* of storage for the program. Today, for $19, you can get a pack of three ESP32 S3 units. Two primary cores at 240 MHz, a third core at ~20 MHz, 512 kB of RAM, 384 kB of main storage, 8 MB of SPI flash, all kinds of built-in peripherals (UARTs, SPI, I2C, even WiFi and Bluetooth). Learning how computers actually work has never been easier for people who want to know!
Jade@Gargron @odr_k4tana Hello, this is someone who grew up using fancy UX and iPads. There was more than enough stuff for me to play with and break as I grew up - from Scratch to HTML and JS to finding ways to bypass firewalls to "Swift Playgrounds." It's not because people don't have the option to learn - it's because they don't have the desire. The way you create that desire isn't by presenting weird and complex flows to get essential things done - it's by socially rewarding the process of gaining knowledge - allowing people that learn CSS to show off their styles on their profiles, allowing people to share little games they make, and bigger ones and even full apps. In the meantime, making getting stuff done harder doesn't serve anyone.
@JadedBlueEyes @odr_k4tana You are not disagreeing with me.
@Gargron @odr_k4tana I guess I'm struggling to see what you are trying to convey, then. It wasn't really UX designers blocking these things - it was security concerns and code signing fees and developer programs and app store cuts and regulations and advertising brand guidelines and spammers and regulations so on. All of these things that were thrown up in my way, when I was trying to learn. I didn't need to take apart Google, when I had incredible documentation and guides and forums to share my work and ask questions.
@Gargron @odr_k4tana to put it more shortly, the deemphasis of files doesn't really have much to do with apple charging you hundreds of dollars to run programs you wrote on your own phone
Furbland's Very Cool Account™
Dynom@Gargron @odr_k4tana that completely depends on your interests. I have two kids, one is helping me solder, wants to press buttons and see how the insides of things look.
The other dances, sings and just wants stuff to work.
The majority of the world just can't be arsed about things they don't want to invest their time in.
I believe this falls under the "optimisers or satisficers" versus "maximisers" observation.
See: satisficing. Maximisers tend to enjoy things less. Ignorance is bliss.
secretsloth@odr_k4tana just having read down the thread some, I want to thank you for this comment, having been born in the 80's and been discouraged from studying coding beyond basic HTML/CSS despite loving it because computer science "was for boys." I graduated in 2004, and went to a very fancy high school, and this was still the attitude. It literally changed the course of my life, and now I'm cognitively disabled (long covid). Usability DOES matter, and not always for the reasons folks assume.
@secretsloth yeah, there's a lot of strong voices that might be very competent in their field of expertise but have a hard time imagining other people's experiences being different.
I've been refocusing my teaching in usable security to a harder psychology ("understanding humans") focus recently since I noticed such tendencies in students as well. They seem to enjoy the new perspectives.
I've been refocusing my teaching in usable security to a harder psychology ("understanding humans") focus recently since I noticed such tendencies in students as well. They seem to enjoy the new perspectives.
@odr_k4tana that's wonderful! I'm sure that's very useful, too, learning about that when their brains are in learning mode. It really is interesting, too, especially learning about the ways folks using assertive tech have to get around various types of "security features" and whatnot, personally I have migraines and seizures so I've been fighting Samsung's UI (their S series are the only screens my eyes can tolerate, but their UI is VERY restrictive), plus many website "designs" to allow ->
@odr_k4tana me to keep my screen dim enough without suddenly flashing brighter, to keep webpages flipped into darkmode using Firefox's dark reader add-on, which many websites break (and some pieces of websites, causing flashing,) and yes, this means I have to use ad blockers, because ads are some of the worst for forced flashing and auto playing videos with extremely bright lights, which are dangerous for me (yet another thing many tech bros dislike. Ad blockers). Life is varied and strange.
Kristian
raphael@Gargron it’s such a bad thing to conflate lowering barrier of entry with lowering permissible skill ceiling. :(
hell yes to making it easier to start doing things! but this systematic deskilling of people is such a harmful thing.
stevenray
caro silva rode@Gargron For me it was Neopets!
hayase yuuka
Third spruce tree on the leftSo.... does this mean custom native Mastodon UI css and scripting on a per-user, or per-instance basis will be officially supported sometime?
Zack Whittaker@Gargron i agree. i feel like the ability to customize, tinker, modify, edit... even hack (gently) websites and web apps especially has been taken away over the past 10-15 years of so. editing the live HTML of a Myspace page back in the 2000s almost feels impossible without all of the guardrails put in place today. it was actually fun to grow up on the internet and with computers during the 90s and 00s!