[AndrewKemendo]

Toothbrush UX is the same today as it was when we were hunter gatherers: use an abrasive tool to ablate plaque from the teeth and gums without removing enamel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMuTG6fOMCg

The variety of form factors offered are the only difference

[mrob]

As somebody who's tried using a miswak [0] teeth-cleaning twig out of curiosity, I can say with confidence it's not the same experience as using a modern toothbrush. It's capable of cleaning your teeth effectively, but it's slower and more difficult than a modern toothbrush. The angle of the bristles makes a huge difference. When the bristles face forward like with a teeth-cleaning twig your lips get in the the way a lot more. Sideways bristles are easier to use.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miswak

[jrowen]

Yes, whittling down a stick is pretty much the same experience as using an electric toothbrush. Or those weird mouthguard things they have now.

I don't think most people would find this degree of reduction helpful.

[AndrewKemendo]

> Yes, whittling down a stick is pretty much the same experience as using an electric toothbrush

Correct? I agree with this precisely but assume you’re writing it sarcastically

From the point of view of the starting state of the mouth to the end state of the mouth the USER EXPERIENCE is the same: clean teeth

The FORM FACTOR is different: Electric version means ONLY that I don’t move my arm

“Most people” can’t do multiplication in their head so I’m not looking to them to understand

[echoangle]

That’s just not what user experience means, two products having the same start and end state doesn’t mean the user experience is the same. Imagine two tools, one a CLI and one a GUI, which both let you do the same thing. Would you say that they by definition have the same user experience?

[AndrewKemendo]

If you drew both brushing processes as a UML diagram the variance would be trivial

Now compare that variance to the variance options given with machine and computing UX options

you’ll see clearly that one (toothbrushing) is less than one stdev different in steps and components for the median use case and one (computing) is nearly infinite variance (no stable stdev) between median use case steps and components.

The fact that the latter state space manifold is available but the action space is constrained inside a local minima is an indictment on the capacity for action space traversal by humans.

This is reflected again with what is a point action space (physically ablate plaque with abrasive) in the possible state space of teeth cleaning for example: chemical only/non ablative, replace teeth entirely every month, remove teeth and eat paste, etc…

So yes I collapsed that complexity into calling it “UX” which classically can be described via UML

[jrowen]

I would almost define "experience" as that which can't be described by UML.

Ask any person to go and find a stick and use it to brush their teeth, and then ask if that "experience" was the same as using their toothbrush. Invoking UML is absurd.

[AndrewKemendo]

You know some of us old timers still remember a time before people just totally abandoned the concept of having functional definitions and iso standards and things like that.

Funny how we haven’t done anything on the scale of Hoover Dam, Three Gorges, ISS etc…since those got thrown away

User Experience also means something specific in information theory and UX and UML is designed to model that explicitly:

https://www.pst.ifi.lmu.de/~kochn/pUML2001-Hen-Koch.pdf

Good luck vibe architecting

[array_key_first]

I think this moreso points out how bad UML is for this sort of thing.