[TheCowboy]

I've often encountered software that feels like it was designed by people who don't have to use it to do work, and not necessarily because they're engaging in class conflict (though it can certainly appear that way based on the painfully flawed software people can be forced to tolerate).

The worst system was a DOS-based point-of-sale system in a restaurant---kept around way beyond the 'age of DOS'. The main gimmick is that it had a wired light touch pen (I think it worked like a classic Nintendo gun) for selection. It gave the illusion of innovation/ease of use, but was extremely cumbersome and required a good amount of experience to avoid mistakes.

I also think trying to pin down things as strictly class warfare every time can muddy problem areas. Institutions realistically do gain some functional productivity by having people specialize and having defined roles, but having them too separated and specialized can also create problems. You can also have a lazy human problem, where people don't want to do the work that isn't directly associated with their role, and so on. There is also a lot in the bschool lit about how different business structures contribute to these problems too.

[paulryanrogers]

Ironic since my experience during the transition away from ASCII displays and shortcut inputs is that the touch screens and deep menus were slow. Touch won because it was more approachable, at least for the shallowest options

[TheCowboy]

Touch is fine when done right with responsive hardware. I'm not making a blanket statement about if touch is good or bad. This was just a poorly designed UI and software. Additionally, the light pens could be prone to error due to dirt and grime.