Old-school FOSS nerds have a hard time admitting that they tend to be absolutely useless at considering user experience, because then that’s something On Computers that they’re not good at. The best they can do is shoo it away by claiming that the sort of UX concerns I’m talking about only apply to software used by Lesser Beings and not Smart Computer Boys such as themselves.
It’s such an outdated user-hostile boys club attitude fuelled by insecurity and misplaced and not even well-thought-out elitism, and I’ll never pull any punches when talking about it.
Yes it is. As an administrator being a CLI tool means that I can automate configs and deployment with ansible or Nix OS. I would argue doing these sorts of automation what are what “power-users” would do.
GUI’s often lack any sort of automation capability or have some half-cocked API that usually lacks features or endpoints that would be trivial if the thing was just a CLI tool with a config file.
Using sane labels and coherent layouts isn't dumbing anything down. You can make things easier for humans while having sane interfaces for scripting. Redirecting the output of `ls` and similar commands automatically change the layout to something easy for cli i/o manipulation.
We realized long long ago that the API and human-facing interfaces are often better when separated, which is why I don't browse the web with curl... or maybe telnet.
New-school FOSS nerds don't seem to understand that all poor user experience concerns are because we are trying to be productive. The new style of of reduced information density and easy-to-remember names isn't useful when you are paid to have production systems up and running. What I need are tools that give me the exact information I need quickly and get the fuck out of my way for everything else.
> It’s such an outdated user-hostile boys club attitude fuelled by insecurity and misplaced and not even well-thought-out elitism, and I’ll never pull any punches when talking about it.
Most people that complain about this put the minimal viable effort into actually learning what they are doing. Somehow I'm the idiot after spending hours of my life to learn this professionally and for wanting expert interfaces. You can call me elite all you like but when the whirlpool of disaster is pulling us both under, I'll be in my elite raft surfing the waves while you struggle.
> New-school FOSS nerds don't seem to understand that all poor user experience concerns are because we are trying to be productive. The new style of of reduced information density and easy-to-remember names isn't useful when you are paid to have production systems up and running.
The reason you find them more productive is because you already know how to use them. Needlessly reduced information density is usually a bandaid applied to a shitty, confusing interface by a non-designer because they don't know how to organize it to be easily parsable, but still dense. Maybe denser than before. You don't even realize when a good designer has done a good job because it just makes sense— it's so intuitive and useful to cite users that you don't have to think about it. If it it's a utilitarian tool that "looks designed," it was probably a non-designer trying to gussy it up, or "work on UX" without realizing that means a lot more than white space, colors, and fonts. A solid understanding of visual hierarchy would solve at list half of FOSS interface problems without changing anything other than layout. The problem is project maintainers who think any attempt to remediate their non-designed cobbled-together interface is an attack by the 'new school' or what have you and either dismiss it out of hand, or reflexively bikeshed any proposal into oblivion because they're defensive, and lack the design sophistication to knowledgeably engage. As a senior developer and someone who enrolled in art school as an adult, I know how much more defensive people get about work they're not confident in. When those people are in charge of a project AND have the misguided notion that their "design" (read as cobbled-together assembly of user-facing functionality) is more functional than an expert's design, just uglier, good luck pushing change through.
> Most people that complain about this put the minimal viable effort into actually learning what they are doing. Somehow I'm the idiot after spending hours of my life to learn this professionally and for wanting expert interfaces. You can call me elite all you like but when the whirlpool of disaster is pulling us both under, I'll be in my elite raft surfing the waves while you struggle.
And fraternities keep paddling pledges and making them drink gallons of grain alcohol because they all had to do it too, so everybody else should. Complaining that nobody wants to spend time studying something that they wouldn't have to if it was properly designed is an asinine argument against progress. The only people here who should be chastised for refusing to learn new things are the people who refuse to consider better approaches and insist everybody else learn the same inscrutable incantations they did, because it's easier for them... Because they already know them. Just because you can't imagine productive ways to update these tools to a post-teletype world doesn't mean that nobody can.
If you have trouble with tools like dig, you have wasted a lot of fucking time.
Measuring usability by your own comfort level is the reason user-facing "open source alternatives" that aren't foundation-backed with dedicated designers will remain "alternative" in perpetuity.
I'm a super-user and as such I have to use hundreds of tools to GTD. What you call “pretty UI” I call ergonomics. So I appreciate when the tooling is respectful of my time and don’t require me to visit the man page just because the developer was so situational myopic that thought sparing a few characters was a good idea.
It all smells like unconscious gatekeeping.
RTFM is usually (not always) a way to gatekeep bad UX.
For instance, you look at the dash of your car every time you drive, and what little is labeled is abbreviated. The expectation is that when you understand how the vehicle operates, the gauges and lights will make sense. The information is encoded behind your knowledge. dig isn't really different.
Some people want the tools to teach them everything, but that's just not appropriate or necessary, whether you're talking about a hammer, a firearm, or a computer.
> Once you're past that hurdle, it's redundant.
Yeah, then multiply that hurdle times the thousand others someone has to memorize to work in *nix.
> Some people want the tools to teach them everything, but that's just not appropriate or necessary, whether you're talking about a hammer, a firearm, or a computer.
Textual output on a computer is a communication medium-- hammers and firearms are not.
The CLI is inherently a super-user oriented interface. The CLI needs to let an experienced user be as productive as possible.
If you need a pretty UI with everything spelled out, you should go on GitHub and find a GUI that someone built on top of the core tool. But dumbing down the core tool is not the way to go.
The --help message should be good, and the man page needs to be good, but the tool itself should favor power and productivity over handholding someone who doesn't want to Google a how-to.