zlacker

I believe most of it is people expecting stuff to work differently, not having time to wrap their head around proper usage of system, because they need specific outcome and they don't need mastery of the tool.

Downside is that "Facebookization" created a trend where people expect everything to be obvious and achievable in minimal amount of clicks, without configuring anything.

Now "LLMization" will push the trend forward. If I can make a video with Sora by typing what I want in the box, why would I need to click around or type some arcane configuration for a tool?

I don't think in general it is bad - it is only bad for specialist software where you cannot use that software without deeper understanding, but the expectation is still there.

>>ozim+(OP)
> If I can make a video with Sora by typing what I want in the box

IME, people cannot even articulate what they want when the know what they want, let alone when they don’t even understand what they want in the first place.

>>ozim+(OP)
It is weird to push the idea that Facebook is some kind of pinacle of good and easy to use UI. That's the first one. It's quite the opposite, with people constantly complaining how bad, clunky and confusing Facebook is. And it is not the recent trend either. It has always been this way and e.g. VK has always had a better UI/UX that Facebook (and Telegram's is better that Whatsapp's).

>>machom+8g
But still, compared to something like email, the previous standard for most people, Facebook was an unbelievable step forward. People complain about anything.

>>machom+8g
facebook literally obfuscates their UI to stop you turning off "features" they want to push on you

it is a UI designed to be hard to use

>>twelve+1m
You're talking about two different things here (and I'm not condoning either, to be clear.)

1) UI = a clearly documented way to configure all features and make the software work exactly how you want.

2) UI = load a web page and try to do the thing you wanted to do (in this case communicate with some specific people).

FB is clearly terrible at 1 but pretty alright at 2.

>>machom+8g
Not as pinnacle of good - but pinnacle of “you don’t have to think, just scroll, occasionally like something” ;).

Then people expect accounting software to be just login click one or two buttons.

>>philip+xh
Facebook is a step forward in terms of features. But it is a clear regression in terms of UI, easiness, usability, understandability of email. Email is very simple in both concept and practice.

>>machom+la2
I think I disagree - when it comes to sharing large files, something like a video, or even a picture in 2005, email was nowhere near as good. And also having a place to comment on things without the stacking up of reply chrome is genuinely better.

>>philip+7F9
> when it comes to sharing large files, something like a video, or even a picture in 2005, email was nowhere near as good.

That's just a stupid limitation and not even a technical one. You could happily send GBs over email. You can also easily filter allowed attachment size by sender on the recipient side, because by the time the attachment size is told, both information was already provided.

>>philip+7F9
Email was created for email, not for file sharing of massive files (even though nothing stops). Facebook is even worse than email at sharing large files, video files or even pictures (like, imgur is much better).

Commenting on things is from a list of features (to be distinguished from UX/UI) I talked about.