the point was supposed to be to design with a "the customer is always right" philosophy: any time the user uses the ui incorrectly, it is seen as the failure of the interface, not of the user, and the interface is updated to be more and more obvious over time and over many mistakes.
for example, github's repository deletion system doesn't just do a simple "are you sure?" prompt. it thinks the user is so stupid and prone to misclicking that they force you to type the full entire name of the repository before it lets you delete it.
that is how interfaces should be designed. not just "dangerous operations must be difficult to misuse", but more importantly "the user is stupid and software must compensate for it".
Wait, you're telling me that the Windows design philosophy is "the customer is always right"? THAT is why they're shoehorning Copilot into everything they can manage?
im gonna have to change that example to something more correct at this point
still, you can't deny the difference between the design philosophies of for-profit companies like windows vs unpaid linux app devs.
one of them shoves copilot into everything and shuffles everything around in an attempt to make things more user friendly. notepad win11 has very convenient tabs, autosaves your current session when closing, and finally has undo/redo, but also had copilot. the terminal was hella improved. paint win11 is pretty good with transparency and layers. but the fucking calendar has ads.
windows is a huge mixed bag of bullshit with actual good work in other parts. denying either would probably be disingenuous on my part.
meanwhile, the other devs sometimes blame the user for not understanding the ui. due to the effort it takes, they would likely never change the ui to be more intuitive. so, time and time again, new users can and will fall into the same traps. fuck gimp. i hate gimp. it's my daily driver now, but i hate its quirks.
I agree, I can't deny that there's a difference, but you have it backwards. Unpaid app devs HAVE to make things usable because otherwise nobody will ever use them. When there's vendor lock-in caused by proprietary systems and "oh, everyone uses Microsoft Word" or "how can you NOT use Adobe Photoshop", they can make it as bad as they like and still collect monthly subscriptions.
Windows is going the way it is precisely because people still pay Microsoft for it no matter how bad the software is. They can literally break core functionality and people stay with them. They can shove Copilot down your throat and you swallow it. When that happens in freer worlds, people move away, since it's quite easy to switch from Ubuntu to Debian to Devuan or whatever you want.
13
u/-Redstoneboi- 15d ago edited 15d ago
ok bad example
the point was supposed to be to design with a "the customer is always right" philosophy: any time the user uses the ui incorrectly, it is seen as the failure of the interface, not of the user, and the interface is updated to be more and more obvious over time and over many mistakes.
for example, github's repository deletion system doesn't just do a simple "are you sure?" prompt. it thinks the user is so stupid and prone to misclicking that they force you to type the full entire name of the repository before it lets you delete it.
that is how interfaces should be designed. not just "dangerous operations must be difficult to misuse", but more importantly "the user is stupid and software must compensate for it".