|
And just how would the UI have been any better? Give the limits of
the tech at the time. Hindsight and nonsense about profits and monopolies
(separate issues in their own rights, but equally unrelated) doesn’t explain
what you’re so convinced would be better. It’s a bad analogy to
start with, and you just make yourself look foolish continuing with it.
Again, deflecting the blame. Sure, if an environment HAS designers
that’d certainly be within their responsibilities. A great many software
development situations don’t have that luxury.
And you then want to blame the users for making use of the tools? Is
your head so far up your ass that you think the daylight you see is
progress?
Please tell me you’re not that stupid.
From: John Cowan
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 5:23 PM
To: Bill Kearney
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Topics of keen interest to me ... how about
you? On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Bill Kearney <wkearney@gmail.com> wrote: --
What "actual hardware limitations"? There are letters on a U.S. phone
dial and have been nearly forever. The bad UI was imposed to keep
costs down and monopoly profits up.
True. First of all, programmers only do UI because no one will pay
for properly trained designers to do it. And that, too, is a matter of
keeping costs down and profits up. If people wouldn't use bad UIs, the
products wouldn't sell, but they *do* sell, so why shouldn't companies take
advantage of that?
GMail doesn't have rotating .sigs, but you can see mine at http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/signatures |