> I’m not convinced that making interfaces so simple and “intuitive” that anyone can truly learn them on their own is even possible, maybe not even desirable since it encourages more of that kind of rugged individualism in computing and eliminates a lot of creative potential through locked-down apps and systems.
This is exactly what the adfarms (Facebook, Google, etc) want.
> I see a lot more value in community support, good documentation and accessible learning resources.
This is exactly what they don't want. This costs money.
I agree with the article, but unfortunately the incentives of the adfarms are not aligned with allowing users to learn for themselves. Gotta keep them engaged so they can look at ads instead, which means things must be brain dead simple.
> This is exactly what they don't want. This costs money.
That sort of experience is why I don't begrudge people paying "extra" for Apple products (and do so myself). Apple put the legwork in to actually try and document their products in a friendly way, and provide support to users who need it.
Figuring out features of Google products seems to require random web searches and YouTube videos, because they don't appear to care about their customers' outcomes more than a second after they've handed over their money. Apple just... has how to guides on their website. The end.
They're still just an american bigcorp with fascist tendencies that's going to fuck you. At least Google lets me run my own software on my own hardware without getting permission from anyone.
This is exactly what the adfarms (Facebook, Google, etc) want.
> I see a lot more value in community support, good documentation and accessible learning resources.
This is exactly what they don't want. This costs money.
I agree with the article, but unfortunately the incentives of the adfarms are not aligned with allowing users to learn for themselves. Gotta keep them engaged so they can look at ads instead, which means things must be brain dead simple.