[miek]

How is this the top comment? The author's aim is making their app a joy to use because it is for their own children. You interpreted their comment about making things feel like real objects as them trying to hook users like big tobacco? Utter nonsense.

[parasti]

As a parent of a toddler, could not disagree more.

This article can be read two different ways.

A parent making an app for their own children is wholesome and making a list of UX finds is helpful to other parents in that position.

At the same time app stores are filled with games that hook kids on with bright visuals, sound effects, and basic button mashing.

That second use case is vastly more common.

[miek]

I can't help but wonder if I'm being trolled. This app does not hook kids with garbage, visuals, sound effects, or basic button mashing. The author is also against ads, social sharing (due to child safety), and children being able to spend money in the app.

You say "that second use case is vastly more common", however the author is very clearly aimed at the first use case. Yet you are arguing that they fall into the second.

[parasti]

I am not arguing that.

You called a viewpoint that I share "utter nonsense". So I presented a counterpoint. A counterpoint to your opinion is neither a troll nor an attack on the original author's intent and/or character.

All I'm saying is we can both read the same article and one of us goes to build an app for their kid while the other goes and builds an app that gets other people's kids addicted to it while shoving ads. This has nothing to do with the author of the article.