rough draft of UX case studies intro post. #401
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
|
||||
|
|
||||
---
|
||||
slug: ux-study-timeline
|
||||
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.
|
||||
slug: ux-studies-intro
|
||||
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.
Sorry that I can't remember, if you were planning on adding to this to make it a long form, or if the case-studies will be seperate posts? I'm asking here because maybe a slug of just But than again, if you've decided hard on a series, that cool and no need to change it. Sorry that I can't remember, if you were planning on adding to this to make it a long form, or if the case-studies will be seperate posts?
I'm asking here because maybe a slug of just `ux-studies` might give you flexibility later on as it doesn't imply a series, but you could still do `ux-studies-part2` etc later on. I'm only saying this because changing the title and the content later is fine, but we don't want to change the slug after publish.
But than again, if you've decided hard on a series, that cool and no need to change it.
|
||||
title: "GUI-CAD UX studies: introduction"
|
||||
author: Frank Noirot
|
||||
author_title: CadHub Core Team
|
||||
@@ -40,4 +40,4 @@ I'll try to explore that design space with a few brief case studies on UX that I
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
But I want to mention that work is already being done on this front. Jeremy Wright of the CadQuery team is building [Semblage](https://semblage.7bindustries.com/en/latest/), a GUI-code hybrid built with CadQuery and the Godot gaming engine. [BuildBee](https://makecode.buildbee.com/) lets users switch between Scratch-like block interface and JavaScript code for making models. Blender provides an [excellent Python API](https://docs.blender.org/api/current/index.html) for almost all of its incredible functionality, and there a dozen other projects pushing things forward while we look to the present and the past for more inspiration.
|
||||
|
||||
Our first stop will be the timeline feature of AutoDesk Fusion360, which is a clever way to make the order of operations in modelling intuitive.
|
||||
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.
|
||||
Our first stop will be the timeline feature of AutoDesk Fusion360, which is a clever way to make the order of operations in modelling intuitive. Stay tuned for this post and more in the coming weeks, check out our work on [GitHub](https://github.com/Irev-Dev/cadhub/discussions/404) and [Figma](https://www.figma.com/file/VUh53RdncjZ7NuFYj0RGB9/?node-id=633%3A0), sign up for [Kurt's newsletter](https://kurthutten.com/), and join [our Discord](https://discord.gg/sFYJyEJ6) to get plugged into our ongoing discussions about the future of Code-CAD.
|
||||
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.
|
||||
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.