[Discuss] Its not possible to make things easier for users

[markw at mohawksoft.com (Mark Woodward)]

On 01/14/2013 11:47 AM, Rich Pieri wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 09:41:26 -0500
> Matthew Gillen <me at mattgillen.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't think that's quite right.  It's not that people don't want
>> choices, it's that they don't want to make choices where they don't
>> understand the options, and there is a high learning curve (esp. when
>> options interact with each other in non-trivial ways).

The problem with generalities is that they are always wrong to some degree.
> It's not that Joe doesn't understand the options. It's that Joe sees no
> point to them.

That depends on the particular "joe" you are talking about. For some 
quantity of joe, you will have a range from "don't know, don't care" to 
"knows, and cares." If you go too simple, then only the "don't know, 
don't care" joe will be happy. If you add too many options without 
making something "easy by default" you alienate DKDC joe, but make KC 
joe happy.

> When Joe goes to the gas pump he sees three numbers that don't mean
> anything beyond "expensive shit", "cheap swill", and "the stuff in
> between". Joe pushes the button he can afford and fills the tank.

Now, that isn't true. *at all*. Many high end car drivers have to buy 
premium because their cars knock.  Performance cars typically need the 
extra octane. Many "joes" drive cars like mustangs and such.
>
> Joe sees the music ripper the same way: push the button that makes his
> music fit on his shiny thing and fill the tank. Offering him an array
> of codecs and quality settings and what-not is unnecessary. They just
> get in the way and make the computer hard to use when it should be as
> easy as pumping gas.

Again, what about the joes that put in really really great audio systems 
in their cars?
>