Is there a small simple tweak that you desperately wish you could make to some piece of software you use frequently? (Collecting motivating examples for a tool for end user tweaking)
-
Prikaži ovu nit
-
Odgovor korisniku/ci @geoffreylitt
Rather than tweak the software, I’d like to inform developers of small simple things they should have done. Eg: adding user-select: none to HTML UI elements so that they don’t act like text when double clicked. Hold devs to a higher standard > rely on users to fix shortfalls.
0 proslijeđenih tweetova 2 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisniku/ci @spiralganglion
That makes sense for some things, but what about other changes that are specific to individual needs? When I was working on a widely deployed web app, we'd get lots of requests that a few users legitimately needed badly, but would never be prioritized on our roadmap
1 reply 1 proslijeđeni tweet 2 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisniku/ci @geoffreylitt
(Preamble: I automatically reject arguments of the form "it didn't work before, so it won't ever work") Allowing people to arbitrarily modify their own software leads to much woe as new versions of the software break their mods. Happens to games, 3d art tools, VSTs, 90s OSes…
0 proslijeđenih tweetova 3 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisniku/ci @spiralganglion
My initial instinct is to defer this concern, and first focus on enabling end users to do more modding But maybe this is actually a core problem, and totally changes the resulting architecture? (eg, "forks" vs "plugins" handle upstream changes differently)
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 1 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa -
Odgovor korisnicima @geoffreylitt @spiralganglion
This resembles Knuth's disctinction between reusable and re-editable software (my take on this: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01966146 ). Reusable sealed building blocks for "deep" problems tied together with tweakable code would be just fine for me.
0 proslijeđenih tweetova 4 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa -
Emacs has been quite successful in being a malleable user-interface layer for lower-level tools that hardly anyone wants to modify. For e-mail, I have a highly personalized Emacs configuration on top of mbsync and notmuch whose development I happily leave to others.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 1 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa -
To make an analogy with the physical world, we have the software equivalents of industrial supply chains and supermarkets, but not the equivalent of hardware stores. We get neither screws and plywood nor hand tools.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
We don't even have the software equivalent of hammers. ...It's easy to think up unintended uses for hammers, and the physics engine of reality is robust enough to allow those uses. Much harder to think up an unintended use for software, and have the software permit that use.
-
-
Emacs requires you to be a programmer to bend it to your will. A hammer does not require you to be a carpenter. (Before someone says "hammers are much simpler", spend some time thinking about how mind-boggling composable hammers are.)
1 reply 1 proslijeđeni tweet 3 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisnicima @spiralganglion @geoffreylitt
Agreed. Emacs was the swiss army knife (and the hammer) for its time, when the competence profile of computer users was different. It's no longer adequate today. But I am not aware of a decent successor.
0 replies 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 1 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.