Venting thread

[hwhatting]

There should be a law that prohibits changes to user interfaces or functionalities except if a majority of users votes for them.

[Travis B.]

This shows the necessity of free software - because you can always use an older version if you do wish, and you can fork from that older version if you so see the need.

(Unfortunately there are people like Canonical trying to turn Linux into Windows with snapd and like...)

[Raphael]

There should be a law that prohibits changes to user interfaces or functionalities except if a majority of users votes for them.

This.

It's kinda weird, given that I'm not exactly conservative politically, but I'm in a way very conservative about software. In that field, once something works, it shouldn't be messed with. Ideally, people whose jobs are about maintaining software should limit themselves to bug fixes and maybe some really much-demanded adjustments. Instead... ...I guess to some extent what happens is that people in those jobs constantly feel the need to justify their salaries somehow.

Another problem is that apparently, many professional software designers simply don't get how, exactly, people who aren't "good with computers" interact with them, and how close they often are to outright panicking whenever they see something on their screens they aren't used to seeing.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I think people tend to be more conservative in things that apply very strongly to them (wanting to publish books, I'm far more conservative about intellectual property law than I am on most anything else, at least as it applies to individual creators as opposed to large companies), especially where those things work in a way they find acceptable, and to which they are accustomed.

[Travis B.]

I would say that I am a traditionalist when it comes to software. I tend to believe when it comes to software that while not all change is bad, change for change's sake very often is, and new does not necessarily mean better. I still tend to take a middle-of-the-road approach here; e.g. while I did not welcome systemd, I did not switch away from Debian to xBSD or like because of it.

[Moose-tache]

I hate it when platforms implement "upgrades" without ways to revert or get rid of them.

Software updates are a useful reminder that we're all living in the personal pleasure gardens of about ten rich psychopaths.

[alice]

Many, many, years ago, I heard about a user who complained to a call centre when Adobe brought out a second product besides PageMaker, because up to then she had always referred to "the Adobe" and could now no longer do so without creating ambiguity.

[FlamyobatRudki]

I hate it when platforms implement "upgrades" without ways to revert or get rid of them.

Software updates are a useful reminder that we're all living in the personal pleasure gardens of about ten rich psychopaths.

Yup.

[Raphael]

I think people tend to be more conservative in things that apply very strongly to them

I've heard that idea before, and I don't really buy it. For instance, LGBTQ+ people usually aren't conservative on LGBTQ+ issues. People who are a lot into sex outside traditional restrictions usually aren't conservative on sex-related issues. Most scientists who work in fields where the conservative party line these days says that the scientists got it all wrong (or are lying) aren't conservative on those fields. Many poor people aren't conservative on socio-economic issues. And so on.

Back on point, now I kind of think that my dream job might being testing software and telling the developers why it's not user-friendly.

[bradrn]

On the subject of software UX, I get the feeling that many developers don’t want their software to be user-unfriendly at all; quite the reverse! Either they’re just bad designers and don’t realise what they’re doing wrong, or changes to the worse are imposed from above and the design is not under their control.

[zompist]

On the subject of software UX, I get the feeling that many developers don’t want their software to be user-unfriendly at all; quite the reverse! Either they’re just bad designers and don’t realise what they’re doing wrong, or changes to the worse are imposed from above and the design is not under their control.

I don't think this is hard to understand--

* Sometimes the suits do impose antipatterns. Developers don't independently (say) make it hard to unsubscribe from a payment plan, or create games with mismatched purchase prices and game-coin prices so you have to buy more coins than you want. Some suit forces those things.
* Most developers are bad UX designers. They aren't trained for it, they're technophiles who love new things, they don't know any non-techies, and they know their own product too well to understand what it will look like to an outsider.
* And since the devs can, technically, design the product themselves, the suits don't want to hire a UX designer or give them the time to do UX testing.

And though all this has been true for decades, I personally suspect Agile has made the problem far worse. The Agile paradigm is anti-user: it's a system designed to write code fast, and UX takes time.

[Vardelm]

On the subject of software UX, I get the feeling that many developers don’t want their software to be user-unfriendly at all; quite the reverse! Either they’re just bad designers and don’t realise what they’re doing wrong, or changes to the worse are imposed from above and the design is not under their control.

* Most developers are bad UX designers. They aren't trained for it, they're technophiles who love new things, they don't know any non-techies, and they know their own product too well to understand what it will look like to an outsider.

This. It's not just the technophile aspect. Most developers (of the many I've met) don't do as well with "right brain" thinking. They don't have much of an artistic sense, or a good feel of psychology to understand how anyone else (techie or non-techie) will perceive things. They may not be an expert in a given process, and so they implement something that reflects their understanding of the process. Sometimes their UI designs reflect what is logical according to the way their code is structured, but not for how a user would think of things.

Keep in mind to become really good in programming, they need to become good at breaking down a problem into very discrete, black & white decisions: if this exact condition exists, do that precise action. UI design is much more of an art with a lot of different considerations, leading to some fuzzy logic, so almost by definition it's not going to be what developers are good at.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I think people tend to be more conservative in things that apply very strongly to them... especially where those things work in a way they find acceptable, and to which they are accustomed.

I've heard that idea before, and I don't really buy it. For instance, LGBTQ+ people usually aren't conservative on LGBTQ+ issues. People who are a lot into sex outside traditional restrictions usually aren't conservative on sex-related issues. Most scientists who work in fields where the conservative party line these days says that the scientists got it all wrong (or are lying) aren't conservative on those fields. Many poor people aren't conservative on socio-economic issues. And so on.

I've filled in the rest of the context for you. Replying to half the sentence like that is a bit like going for a "gotcha", in my mind.

[rotting bones]

Write a horror story about an unusably complex user interface.

The user interface was a monstrosity, a tangled mess of buttons and menus that seemed to defy all logic and reason. It was as if the designers had deliberately set out to create a UI that was as complex and frustrating as possible.

As the users struggled to navigate its labyrinthine depths, they began to sense a malevolent presence lurking within the interface. It seemed to enjoy their confusion and frustration, feeding on their despair and hopelessness.

Some of the users tried to resist, to fight against the complexity of the UI. They poured over manuals and tutorials, seeking some glimmer of understanding. But the more they learned, the more daunting the interface became. It seemed to change and evolve, adapting to their efforts to master it.

In the end, it was too much for most of the users. They gave up, abandoning their attempts to control the interface. And as they did, they could feel the presence within it growing stronger and more powerful.

It was as if the user interface had become alive, a malevolent entity that reveled in their suffering. And for those who remained, trapped within its complex and inscrutable depths, there seemed to be no escape.

----

Write a horror story about procrastination.

Procrastination was a curse that plagued the minds of many. It crept into their thoughts and whispered promises of future productivity, tempting them to put off their tasks and responsibilities for just a little while longer.

But as time passed, procrastination grew stronger and more powerful. It fed on the fear and anxiety of its victims, driving them to avoid their work and obligations. It whispered lies and deceived them, telling them that they had plenty of time to complete their tasks, that they could always do it later.

For some, procrastination became a prison, trapping them in a cycle of avoidance and inaction. They struggled to break free, to focus on their work and achieve their goals. But the longer they waited, the harder it became to overcome their procrastination.

And for those who did not resist, who succumbed to the lure of procrastination, there was no escape. It consumed them, devouring their time and energy, until they were left with nothing but regret and the realization that it was too late. Procrastination had won, and they were its unwilling slaves.

[Halian]

But if the GOP controls one or both houses, they can (and presumably will) simply refuse to certify the 2024 election results.

The joint session to certify the Electoral College votes for 2024 will be of the 118th Congress, elected in November 2024, not the incoming 117th Congress. Either way, an objection to an individual vote, or to all the votes from a given state, requires a majority of both houses of Congress, and so is more difficult than you presently seem to imagine.

[Moose-tache]

You know that one architect who's like "I don't believe in bathrooms, so I design all my buildings with a big courtyard fountain for shitting in. People can just learn to get on my level or hold it in."? I feel like that person specifically is in charge of every software update. Just when I get used to an app, the developer says "Yeah, that button doesn't really speak to our philosophy anymore." And then poof, my button is gone. I will never again see the menu that lived on the other side, because that information has gone to live on the big farm upstate with all the other shadow data I'm not shown, like all the personal information they've deduced about me.

[Moose-tache]

Remember, in 2021 only eight out of fifty one Republicans in the Senate voted to overturn election results, plus two thirds of the Republicans in the House. Even if the GOP is insanely well whipped in 2024, it's going to need a big majority to accomplish an election negation.

[Ahzoh]

I did terrible in one of my courses' exam... I hate long essay questions. I think I'm fucked for this course in general.

[rotting bones]

I did terrible in one of my courses' exam... I hate long essay questions. I think I'm fucked for this course in general.

I feel your pain.

[Raphael]

Feelin' blue, for reasons both specific and unspecific. Right now, none of my usual distractions work for me.