|
|
|
|
|
|
by nvme0n1p1
4 days ago
|
|
|
Yeah, I generally agree with him but there are plenty of fun counterexamples: 1. You go to the DMV to renew your driver's license at a kiosk there. There's a warrant for your arrest. Should the kiosk serve the user directly interacting with it and print out a new license anyway? 2. Grocery store: should a self-checkout serve the user and give them free groceries? 3. ATM: does the user get free money? |
|
|
It's not about giving away resources, it's about serving the user.
1. No, a kiosk shouldn't be hooked up to some crime database, it should function exactly as expected in situ.
2. A self-service checkout machine shouldn't 'give away' free stuff, it should however let you pay and leave.
3. An ATM should give the user money from their account - without added charge for the convienance.
I think 2 and 3 are bad examples because they actually already exist in the way that Andrew is saying things should exist. If they didn't (for example, they played a 30 second advert before you could checkout) then people would never have started using them.
Software/SaaS/startups are much more inclined to use dark patterns and attempt to bleed the users dry (either their cash or their attention) - established conveniences like self checkout and ATMs on the whole just do their job - the general public would NOT accept it any other way. It's a shame the general public don't share the same sentiment when it comes to more glamorous technology.