Thread by @jmspool

This *is* a great discussion. Thank you.

Let's talk about the two things you've raised:

(1) what data is made visible to the users (and why you're wrong about this 😀) and
(2) the flexibility of the tool (and why that's not relevant to this discussion)

https://twitter.com/verbiate/status/1369854236691861504

I believe your notion that professional users (whatever that is) have more need for raw data than "you or I" is not correct.

Let's take pro photographers. The camera reveals all sorts of settings, most of which are anachronistic and where there's many complex interdependencies.

(For example, adjusting the ISO changes requires changes to both the shutter speed and the f-stop to get a similar image.)

As computational power has increased in the cameras, the need to know these numbers has vastly decreased.

Technology now solves the interdependency issues that photographers had to keep in their heads. They can set up a shoot faster, get the effects they want, and do manipulations in the camera they never could before.

Bits are cheap and malleable, unlike film.

A good (simple) example is high dynamic range imaging, a powerful advanced technique.

Before computation: photographers had to do calculations, resort to manual bracketing, use independent light meters, and pray the image came out the way the envisioned.

Now: they a preview the image, make adjustments (without knowing the underlying values or system interactions), and get immediate quality results.

Camera designers have paid attention to pro photographer needs and developed better solutions than providing a dashboard of values.

My contention is anytime we say "there are people who still need the values displayed," what we're really saying is "there's a class of users we don't understand and, boy, we really should."

The urge to display values in a dashboard should be an immediate call for research.

Show me a place where you think a dashboard is valuable and I'll show you a place where we don't know enough about users and what they need to accomplish.

I bet this holds true 98% of the time.

As for (2): The flexibility of the tool.

I'm not suggesting that we put hard limits on capabilities. There can be simple overrides.

Take your developing world example of outrunning natural disasters:

The vehicle could have an override to allow someone to accelerate past a "safe" limit. (This is already implemented for cruise control systems that override the auto controls when the driver depresses the brakes.)

So, I'm not suggesting we should limit usage.

However, providing unlimited usage doesn't automatically assume that dashboards are required.

Is your developing world driver paying attention to the dashboard at the moment they're outrunning the natural disaster? Probably not.

The data isn't their focus at that moment.

Modern airplanes all have automatic systems with overrides.

A surprising high number of plane crashes (fatal and near-fatal) come when pilots override the automatic systems and rely on the gauges alone.

Giving users the ability to override systems doesn't always end well.

Flexibility is both a blessing and a curse.

Bonus question: Can you come up with a clear definition of the difference between a "professional user" and a non-professional user?

(Bonus points if it's something other than the obvious, standard definition of "one gets paid to use it and the other uses it without payment.")