[Tracist]

When you have a checkbox for every possible customisation option, you end up with a commercial airliner cockpit - hundreds of flashing lights and switches, that you need a comprehensive manual and years of experience to properly operate.

[screaminghawk]

Or you end up with `about:config`. Doesn't solve the impossible to comprehend everything problem, but it still gives people to option.

[pilif]

And then you end up with people complaining about bloat because the browser contains code for every possible state of all these settings.

[snaky]

It's clearly not the case when the checkbox you adding is an option to turn off some feature enabled by default.

No, not the feature all other components do need so much you have to work around by adding another zillion lines of code in other places of your program to deal with the case it turned off.

[reitanqild]

Spoken like a true modern ux designer ;-)

I won't say you cannot make toys but I'd be happy if ux designers everywhere could take a break and stop dumbing down working applications, thanks.

PS: they don't need to be flashing.

[TeMPOraL]

> PS: they don't need to be flashing.

In fact, in modern aircraft, they're not flashing. The trend today is to not light a light unless it's important to pay attention to it. It's called "dark cockpit".

[snaky]

Windows have a registry, Firefox - about:config, Linux - kconfig and sysfs. You don't need to make it Boeing way, but you need it.

[edoceo]

Airplane control are complex and require training for many valid reasons. The cluster is actually a great study in UX design.

Also, it's Boeing or I'm not going.

[snaky]

> The cluster is actually a great study in UX design.

Agreed. But it's UX design for power users clearly.

But I was talking about the way to combine 'a regular users UX' with a ton of options you need for power users. The vast majority of the people who have Ubuntu on their laptops never recompile the kernel or even know about sysfs, the vast majority of the Windows and Office users never touch the registry editor - but removing them would be a huge mistake.

[edoceo]

Agreed

[eudora]

So make an advanced options screen divided into categories.

It's not hard.

And you don't have to do every possible customisation options, just the ones that people are enraged about.

[pvorb]

This is hard to do as an afterthought. I bet Firefox had it from the start.

[hrktb]

I wonder if we’re not already at this point though, and it might not be a bad thing.

Not everyone uses a browser the same, but a decent part of people here will spend their working life in the browser. I think for people here it won’t be rare to have dozen of windows with each dozen of tabs, some logged in different acconts within the site they show, some in incognito, some with in developer mode.

Even with just the browser filling multiple windows worth of buttons and stuff to interact with is easy, without even going to hidden preferences and configs.

I’d argue in complexity level we’re already on par with a airliner cockpit, it’s our job to deal with that, and we do it professionaly for years. Of course not everyone needs that complexity, but at least we do.

What I am getting at is, I think we should accept we’re not a t the point where it is simple anymore, embrace the complexity and give tools to effectively manage it.

Airliner cockpit are so because it’s efficient to have individual switches to important action and state indicators. We shouldn’t shy away from showing important info in the interface just because we’d end up with more stuff. Having it hidden can be a worse tradeoff.

[brokenmachine]

The problem is that you're in the 0.001% of people who want their software complicated like an airline cockpit.

Most people don't give a shit, they just want to check their gmail and couldn't care less. They don't even read the alert boxes that do pop up. They just click almost anything blindly.

As a result, companies get away with dark patterns and privacy-compromising changes like this.

I'm somewhere in the middle. I don't want airline-cockpit controls, but I do want the ability to not sync to the cloud/NSA if I want.

I also don't want to be tricked into syncing by some dark pattern silent update that makes an ambiguous clickbox that doesn't clearly say what the privacy implications are either.

[hrktb]

Yes, I think the middle ground will be the majority. All the more so actual “casual” users that want stuff that “just work” will use their phone or tablet, or the default browser already installed and is good enough.

Chromebooks are in an interesting position, with a chance to have newer users. But then they will literally live their life in the browser.

In that sense, Chrome users are already set apart I think.

[beenBoutIT]

I'm convinced that most users would prefer having zero options or checkboxes.

[TeMPOraL]

Yes, they would prefer the software to always be perfectly tuned to them, even as they change their own... preferences.

[gcb0]

that's a huge silly fallacy.

if you are operating something as complex and dangerous, you need the Comercial airliner cockpit! it's that way for a reason! or would you rather board a 747 with a huge colorful button "fly" and another "land"?

if you have something like a browser, that is your last line of defense accessing online banking etc, you need to see into the miriad of options. if you just browse facebook, use the default and be happy. Knowing about:config shouldn't be a gate keeper to anything! going to settings then advanced should be more than enough to communicate the concept of advanced options. anything different you are just being an entitled , incompetent UX designer.

about:config is lazy, but get some of the job done. your oh-so-perfect two options google chrome setting page, is lazy and useless.