Settings are not a design failure

Re:Settings are not a design failure by funcDropShadow on Wednesday February 02, 2022 @05:47PM (#30185227)

Could you explain that? Software that tries to interpret what users are doing and then tries to adapt to itself is on a slippery slope. The first steps in that direction, like a history of visited sites, or recently edited files menu are uncontroversial. But when it moves menu entries around to optimize for assumed workflow of the user, that user gets infuriated very fast.

Software that I cannot adapt to my needs is like an interactive tv. Ultimately I have no control over what is happening. Software that I can adapt to my needs puts the personal in Personal Computer.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Settings are not a design failure by larsrc on Thursday February 03, 2022 @07:18AM (#30191505)

Simple example: I used to be the maintainer of Dia, a diagramming program. It remembers what colours, line width, dash style etc you've last used, so you don't have to keep setting that. This can drastically reduce the number of steps needed per desired action, and reduces frustration, but it would not be great in a separate generic settings windows.

Thinking of my users (including myself) as goldfish is useful: if you've just done a thing, it's likely you'll do it again.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Settings are not a design failure by funcDropShadow on Friday February 04, 2022 @02:59AM (#30204048)

Agreed. That is similar to my example regarding a history of visited sites. And features like that a very helpful in my opinion.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Settings are not a design failure by paulryanrogers on Wednesday February 02, 2022 @06:48PM (#30186072)

Do you mean "like [non-] interactive TV"?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Settings are not a design failure by funcDropShadow on Friday February 04, 2022 @02:57AM (#30204038)

yes

[ Parent | on HN ]