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

Cc: Costello, Roger L. ; xml-dev OASIS

Subject: Re: Topics of keen interest to me ... how about you?

 

 

On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Bill Kearney <wkearney@g...> wrote:

Which is a totally irrelevant analogy.    What might have limited a phone’s UI had quite a lot more to do with actual hardware limitations.

 

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.

 

What limits programmers from decent UI development is not the technology.  Excuses, sure, much like the notion of ‘data driven’.

 

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