rough draft of UX case studies intro post. #401
@@ -18,11 +18,11 @@ I'm helping CadHub out by designing the interfaces for the [new editor](https://
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
## Why GUIs aren't enough anymore
|
||||
|
||||
As others like [Jessie Frazelle](https://medium.com/embedded-ventures/mechanical-cad-yesterday-today-and-tomorrow-981cef7e06b1) have pointed out, the history of CAD software has been focused primarily on using software to emulate the frictionless user experiences of sketching and modelling by hand. That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, because the GUI offered a interface that could be understood by most people. We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed.
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
As others like [Jessie Frazelle](https://medium.com/embedded-ventures/mechanical-cad-yesterday-today-and-tomorrow-981cef7e06b1) have pointed out, the history of CAD software has been focused primarily on using software to emulate the frictionless user experiences of sketching and modelling by hand. That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still forms the foundation of the paradigm, but could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
|
||||
<Image img={ivanSutherland} alt="Ivan Sutherland's Sketchpad program from the 1960's, a man using a pen-like tool on a screen to manipulate a 2D model, considered the first CAD program." className="mb-8 bg-contain rounded-md overflow-hidden max-w-lg mx-auto" />
|
||||
|
||||
It's hard to understate how much of a change that web development has brought to technical culture. In the past decade the web technologies of HTML, CSS, and especially JavaScript have trained a large part of technical workers to think not in terms of software packages, but in terms of the technologies and languages that are used to construct them, because as a culture we have become accustomed to the idea that there is always an API powering whatever tool we're using. Technical users of course still want seamless GUI user experiences on platforms, but increasingly they also want the ability to get under the hood and use the APIs that power whatever tool or platform they're on. This trend is evident in the rise of API-first services like [Stripe](https://stripe.com) and monolith-fracturing trends like [JAMstack web development](https://jamstack.org).
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
It's hard to understate how much of a sea change web development has brought to technical culture. In the past decade the web technologies of HTML, CSS, and especially JavaScript have trained a large part of technical workers to think not in terms of software packages, but in terms of the technologies and languages that are used to construct them, because as a culture we have become accustomed to the idea that there is always an API powering whatever tool we're using. Technical users of course still want seamless GUI user experiences on platforms, but increasingly they also want the ability to get under the hood and use the APIs that power whatever tool or platform they're on. This trend is evident in the rise of API-first services like [Stripe](https://stripe.com) and monolith-fracturing trends like [JAMstack web development](https://jamstack.org).
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
|
||||
With Code-CAD, we are putting a spotlight on this sea change in user expectations, and putting out a call to action for people to start creating experiences for this web-native, language-comfortable audience of CAD users. With CadHub, we're building a showcase for the great Code-CAD packages like [CadQuery](https://cadquery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/) and [OpenSCAD](https://openscad.org/) that have been under development by early adopters for years.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.