|
|
|
|
|
by noirbot
2130 days ago
|
|
Something I think may be related, but I don't have strong evidence for, is that I think some of the high Quality shown in Japanese work is also evidence of a tendency towards not trying to do everything. Things I've noticed in a lot of Japanese products, both software and hardware: 1. Barebones UI/UX that I would guess isn't very accessible for blind/non-traditional users.
2. Poor user manuals and often even worse translations.
3. Proprietary systems where there's no interoperability outside of that company's ecosystem. To me, this points to a system that does a very good job making things for the 80% case, and often doesn't even try to accommodate the 20% case. |
|
On the flip side, Japan doesn't seem to do as well with abstract objects. I'm specifically thinking of software here.
You see, the modern practice of software development is heavily tied to American/European culture, where technology norms, though ostensibly universal, find a natural home in the English language. Consider concepts like generics, devops, dependency injection, static vs dynamic typing: all of these were conceived in English-centric environments. Sure there's nothing linguistically specific about them, but they reflect discourses that happen primarily in English-speaking spaces.
If software development were more mathematical (and maybe more like electronics... somehow less tied to English), I suspect the Japanese would do much better than they are doing right now. (Ruby's Matz is a notable exception, and I suspect his fluent English had something to do with it)
But the fact is, the practice of software development is as much sociology as it is engineering. Large swaths of it are inextricably linked to the culture, norms, and languages of Americans/Europeans. Without a good command of English, one finds oneself merely consuming content but unable to influence the discourse.