AR will always be somewhat awkward until you can physically touch and interact with the material things. It’s useful, sure, but not a replacement.

Haptic feedback is probably my favorite iPhone user experience improvement on both the hardware and software side.

However, I will never be able to type faster than on my keyboard, and even with the most advanced voice inputs, I will always be able to type longer and with less fatigue than if I were to use my voice—having ten fingers and one set of vocal cords.

All options are going to be valid and useful for a very long time.

If the core developers/maintainers are putting in thousands of hours over several years, and a patch comes along, it is rightfully at the discretion of those doing 80-95% of the work.

But as negotiating rationally discusses, we value our work more than others—and there’s some emotional attachment. We need to learn to let that go and try to find the best solution, and be open to the bigger picture.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar

https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Negotiating-Rationall...

Some might also find laziness itself dreadfully boring—like all the Microsoft employees code-reviewing AI-Generated pull requests!

https://blog.stackademic.com/my-new-hobby-watching-copilot-s...

I’m willing to bet, short of droid-speak or some AI output we can’t even understand, that when considering “the system as a whole”, that even with short-term gains in speed, the longevity of any product will be better with real people following current best-practices, and perhaps a modest sprinkle of AI.

Why? Because AI is trained on the results of human endeavors and can only work within that framework.

1. People get lazy when presented with four choices they had no hand in creating, and they don’t look over the four and just click one, ignoring the others. Why? Because they have ten more of these on the go at once, diminishing their overall focus.

2. Automated tests, end-to-end sim., linting, etc—tools already exist and work at scale. They should be robust and THOROUGHLY reviewed by both AI and humans ideally.

3. AI is good for code reviews and “another set of eyes” but man it makes serious mistakes sometimes.

An anecdote for (1), when ChatGPT tries to A/B test me with two answers, it’s incredibly burdensome for me to read twice virtually the same thing with minimal differences.

Code reviewing four things that do almost the same thing is more of a burden than writing the same thing once myself.

Many of which corporations exploited and/or mislead chiefs into believing the project would be safe.

Same premise, different package.

Ultimately, doctors are the experts doing the studies, but AI being there to help will certainly add value.

Avoiding any percentage of misdiagnoses is a huge win and time saver.

hides from the dreaded downvoters

I used to spend more time browsing when reading an actual newspaper or magazine. The discourse on opinion pieces and such is more thought out too—many people, myself included, post too quickly before thinking because we’re always on the go.

Something about the online experience consuming news is less satisfying. Perhaps a hacker out there can set up a print version of HN archives, and print it on a Gutenberg Press. :)

For example, how can doctors save time and spend more time one-on-one with patients? Automate the time-consuming, business-y tasks and that’s a win. Not job loss but potential quality of life improvement for the doctors! And there are many understaffed industries.

The balancing point will be reached. For now we are in early stages. I’m guessing it’ll take at least a decade or two for THE major breakthrough—whatever that may be. :)

Also, I have ten books on perspective drawing, and my understanding isn’t complete without all ten of them

Or, if I’m teaching a subject on A*, perhaps ONE of those articles conveys the materials best for my students.

Thank you for providing links to the others though! I’m sure it will be helpful for someone.

One of the difficulties of course is notarizing/signing the apps and so-forth. Perhaps some Web3 solutions could help as well.

OR, another option would be like what PICO-8 does (or flash I guess)—release the runtime and distribute the “carts” or apps. :)

Still, it’s pretty complex creating a trusted distribution network outside of SaaS. Definitely could work though it’s been done before!

[1]: https://penpot.app/

[2]: https://www.lexaloffle.com/pico-8.php

A restaurant menu contains hamburgers, hotdogs, meatballs. A UI menu is represented by abstract icons of the items contained within a restaurant menu.

Now I am starting to like the hamburger menu after all… perhaps more as satire though. :)

For what it’s worth, ellipsis is the best of the bunch, because it means the same thing as in the written language, and is concise enough to use as a button that suggests what the action does.

See https://apple.com

However, it stands that language is more specific and unambiguous—thus better suited to communicate an action.

There’s also the problem of the plethora of OTHER icons which use horizontal bars to cause even more cognitive load.

And then, there are many people who have not learned hamburger menu since childhood, and thus the burden is even greater!

Menu Settings Notepad

If these are actionable buttons, the message is encoded and decoded by viewers.

Three bars means what, exactly? There’s the cognitive load.

In addition the three bars are as mundane of a composition as you can get, so it doesn’t capture the eye well to begin with. Typically the eye gets pulled to more visually complexity.

But ultimately it boils down to the decoding idea—language is the ultimate “codec” of human communication.

Also, it used to be important when screens were nowhere near as wide but now there’s no longer any reason to use it the way it is.

Perhaps it is permissible on a busy UI with many buttons, but that job was taken by the ellipses, which also takes less cognitive burden!