|
It's not obvious that there's a need to have a “generation” for everything. People then start countless discussions about the name as if the name is what really matters. In my opinion, the characteristic aspect was the widely accepted (and promoted) idea that everyone should learn how to use a computer as a programmable device in the broad sense (whether it was kids with LOGO, professionals with professional software, or general public with general tools and UIs). That education was an important project on a state level. Then the goalposts were silently moved, and it was declared that user already knew enough, and the “intuitive design” or some other thing would deal with the rest. (That doesn't ring true: for some reason, people still need to spend 10 years at school instead of “intuitively” learning all those other things. Moreover, it was the crowd of already prepared people that allowed these practices to be viable.) A couple of iterations, an today, in the “bright future”, there are crowds of computer illiterate people using computing devices as if they are another kind of TVs or phones. Which is, of course, good for the ones who sell those TV-like devices or software services, but is not good for the rest of the people. Despite all of the promotion, someone who, say, places “just” an internet-connected camera into a home or an office to “simply” check the video stream in a “convenient” smartphone application does not make it “more secure”. On the contrary, all kinds of trouble are to be expected, because a little bit of theory tells us that this system is only secured by someone's promises, and a little bit of practical data tells us that the hardware, software, and security practices in such a system are going to be awful most of the time. |