Re: [GNU-linux-libre] I can also bring tons of examples to illustrate a point, even big data, 3D, and cake (was Re: 10 minutes, and uzbl browser became usable)

[Zlatan Todoric]

On 11/15/2016 05:31 PM, hellekin wrote:
> On 11/15/2016 02:57 PM, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
> > The only one treating users dumb here is you and your pal.
> I think you misread an posted in anger, Zlatan.  Matt first mentioned
> that "users are not dumb", but that's besides the point.  The point, and
> I agree with you on that one, is that indeed, a computer user shouldn't
> have to learn how computers work to use them, like a car driver doesn't
> have to learn how cars work to drive them.

I really don't recall I disagree with Matt, on contrary I agree very 
much with him and I even suspect we are aligned with a lot of ideas (but 
that is our personal thing). I disagree with Jaromil and Jean and their 
way of "introducing" things.

<snip>
> I was quite terrified to see that a young man from the smartphone
> generation in front of a text-only Web site with 'obvious' links would
> be confused not to find any *button* to click.

Do you understand that clicking on things is much more natural to human 
beings that reading through text streams? I would be surprised if he 
didn't try to find button.

> It's not that he's stupid, it's that he made a habit of clicking buttons
> to use a computer.  That indeed informs your mind to use this or that
> interface.

Again, clicking is much more natural to humans than wall of text stream.

> People shouldn't have to learn how computers work, but that doesn't mean
> they should be taught to use computers in a way Microsoft or Google
> decides, "because they have the best designers": their designers don't
> care about making users question their technologies, instead they like
> their users predictable and docile.

Although my life style and my work are on the other spectrum from Google 
and Microsoft, I must admit they did invest a lot into finding what 
interface feels more natural and easy to adopt for people.

> People who think that they're one way to do computing are IMO the
> enemies of general computing, and we should be wary of them.  They're
> the same coming at you telling you they know best about [anything],
> because they have 'working models', 'statistics', and so on.  And they
> will come at you saying: look, this is how we can save time by modeling
> the cake in 3D that you're going to send to your baker on his tablet,
> and pick up in the evening coming back home...

Yes, that is why I don't think stubbornly sticking with old tech that 
has flaws and attacking everything that is new with "don't reinvent the 
wheel and don't make user dumb" is not going to help. Users are not 
*that* dumb and the ecosystem is moving into direction where it is more 
comfortable/convenient for users. The best we can do is to listen to 
users and not to ourselves.

> No, you won't, because there's a real person called the baker, who wants
> to hear from you, looking you in the face, how you like the cake.  This
> person will learn much more from you than from a 3D model, and besides,
> the 3D model is entirely incompatible with something he uses called flour.

I don't have time to go to bakery so I order online. Also, suddenly you 
suggest going to meet my baker, to make it personal yet you probably 
hate that google is collecting mass amount of data about you to make 
your online experience more personal.

> And, BTW, there's no 'average user': the 'average user' is an invention
> of people who 'think' with statistics and models and probabilities, and
> can't make the difference between a dumb, or sensitive, or fragile, or
> uninterested person, or between a person and a machine.

There is average user because there is statistics. If 90% of people on 
laptops use Windows, I would say that average laptop user is Windows 
user as well, okay? Whatever reasons lies in their OS usage doesn't 
change the fact that average laptops users is Windows user.

> We're always the 'dumb' of someone else, especially in technology, where
> ego is so high, and corporeality so distant.

Sadly true story, so unless something really constructive (for me, imo) 
happens here, I will avoid to post (much) more.

Thanks on sharing your view,

Z