[HN Gopher] UI is a function of your organization
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       UI is a function of your organization
        
       Author : damethos
       Score  : 137 points
       Date   : 2024-02-20 12:35 UTC (10 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (blog.jim-nielsen.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (blog.jim-nielsen.com)
        
       | gjvc wrote:
       | see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law
       | 
       | and the fact that the same tropes are recapitulated over and over
       | again without any reference to prior art. Alan Kay is correct;
       | computing is a pop culture.
        
         | reubenmorais wrote:
         | Reminds me of the Free Energy principle a bit:
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_principle
        
       | andsoitis wrote:
       | Conway's Law from 1967.
       | 
       |  _[O]rganizations which design systems (in the broad sense used
       | here) are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the
       | communication structures of these organizations._
       | 
       | -- Melvin E. Conway, How Do Committees Invent?
        
         | junon wrote:
         | I've never really agreed with this assertion. What gives it the
         | weight of being an axiom?
        
           | pavlov wrote:
           | Communication flows create dependency points that limit what
           | the design can be.
           | 
           | Consider an organization that designs broom handles. They
           | have an industrial design department that selects the shape
           | and material, and a market research department that selects
           | the color and packaging to fit current trends. If the market
           | research is purely downstream from the industrial design,
           | their feedback can never affect the tactile properties of the
           | product, thus limiting the range of possible designs.
           | 
           | Replace the physical product with an abstract system, and the
           | same design dependency issues apply.
        
           | btbuildem wrote:
           | I would say it's very hard if not impossible to find a
           | counterexample.
        
             | zeroonetwothree wrote:
             | I have certainly worked on software that didn't follow it
             | (ownership of one thing was spread out across different
             | teams). But it was certainly a huge pain to get anything
             | done. So I think the reasons we typically follow Conways
             | law are good
        
           | munificent wrote:
           | Conway's basic argument is pretty simple:
           | 
           | 1. For any two software systems to interact, they must use
           | some sort of agreed API or protocol.
           | 
           | 2. In order to have that agreed API or protocol, the teams
           | building those two systems must communicate in some way (even
           | if it's just one-way communation where one team documents an
           | API and the other consumes it).
           | 
           | 3. Therefore, the communication structures of the software
           | system will reflect the communication structures of the
           | organization. So the software architecture mirrors the org
           | chart.
        
       | lylejantzi3rd wrote:
       | The Only Unbreakable Law - Conway's Law.
       | 
       | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IUj1EZwpJY
        
       | tobr wrote:
       | Is this a response to UI = f(statesn)[1] or are they both a
       | response to something else?
       | 
       | 1: https://daverupert.com/2024/02/ui-states/
        
       | alias_neo wrote:
       | So who's going to tell us that the Domino's Pizza Tracker is just
       | a timer?
       | 
       | I don't eat there often, but when I have, the Pizza sits in QA
       | for about 10 minutes, then is "out for delivery for about 15,
       | despite the fact I could literally walk to the place in 15
       | minutes, and they sure as heck and walking my pizza to me.
       | 
       | Then there's the fact that they outright lie by saying it has
       | been delivered, then turning up about 10 minutes later.
       | 
       | Between the fact it's not the best pizza and this dodgy
       | behaviour, they pretty much make sure I don't eat from there more
       | often than about quarterly.
        
         | xnorswap wrote:
         | It's a failure of incentives for accurate tracking.
         | 
         | It's the same reason that when you buy from McDonald's, the
         | order shows on the screen as "ready for collection" then
         | "collected", then disappears from the screen well before the
         | food has hit the counter at all.
         | 
         | The staff are incentivised to just press everything through the
         | system asap regardless of the actual status of the food.
         | They're presumably performance-measured against targets and
         | aren't punished for just checking that everything went through
         | quickly regardless of the reality.
         | 
         | Domino's are particularly bad (or noticeably bad) for it.
         | 
         | It's an important lesson about remote top down control and a
         | failure mode of JIT systems. I've long wanted to prepare a
         | proper blog post about this exact phenomenon using Domino's and
         | McDonald's as examples, but I haven't put in the effort to
         | collect the right evidence to fully understand the negative
         | effects of IT systems misrepresenting reality.
        
           | shaan7 wrote:
           | Yup. I pickup my orders from Domino's quite regularly and it
           | the tracker is reliable. The only thing that does happen is
           | that they sometimes do mark it "Ready for pickup" while
           | someone still needs to take the pizza from the oven and put
           | it into a box. So I sometimes wait a minute seconds at the
           | counter for that to happen.
        
           | madeofpalk wrote:
           | If you've ever been told to wait in the parking lot at a fast
           | food drive through, it's because the store has a metric on
           | dwell time and throughput that they're optimising for.
        
             | drekipus wrote:
             | I've had to do this with absolutely no one else behind me
             | and no one in front of me.
             | 
             | It's a funny feeling, watching the machine at work
        
           | wkat4242 wrote:
           | Yes this is really dumb at McDonald's. Very confusing. I'm
           | surprised nobody checks for this practice.
           | 
           | But in my area they now do table delivery so I tend to use
           | that.
           | 
           | Ps: it's really funny to see McDonald's proudly advertising
           | table service as if it's some cool new thing they invented :)
        
             | xnorswap wrote:
             | I think eventually they should.
             | 
             | It will cause a real problem if, for example, operations
             | engineers try to make optimisations based on the data.
             | 
             | For a toy example, you could imagine someone might analyze
             | the wait times and determine that the burger frying is on
             | the critical path. Kitchens could be instructed to add an
             | additional person to frying burgers while reducing the
             | headcount at the drinks station. ( You can probably tell I
             | haven't worked in a McDonald's kitchen, but bare with the
             | example. )
             | 
             | However there is a hidden reality given the data was
             | complete fiction, and it could be that the drinks were in
             | reality on the critical path, and this intervention which a
             | computer model predicts will boost throughput will actually
             | harm it.
             | 
             | Of course the reality of operations research will be a lot
             | more nuanced and subtle than that, but the conclusion that
             | fake data will lead to expensive incorrect interventions
             | and suboptimal optimisers stands.
             | 
             | There is also reputation to consider. If McDonald's gets a
             | reputation as somewhere people avoid because they are put
             | off by the broken system, then they should be proactively
             | working out why.
             | 
             | It may well already show up in satisfaction surveys that
             | people are put off by "the computer system", but it may be
             | misattributed to the ordering UX rather than the complete
             | package that includes the broken tracking system,
             | fundamentally broken by misaligned incentives.
        
               | nebula8804 wrote:
               | FYI the drink station is automated. When a person places
               | an order and it has a soda, the soda machine actually has
               | an automatic chute that drops the correct size cup into a
               | rotating set of cupholders and dispenses the appropriate
               | soda so the humans can be focused on preparing the rest
               | of the order. When it comes time to finalize the order
               | the soda is already in the cup ready to go, just add a
               | lid and include it as part of the order.
               | 
               | [1]:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akv4vSXa5a4
        
               | wkat4242 wrote:
               | Here in Europe they don't even add the lid anymore if you
               | dine in. Nor do they provide a straw for diners-in (but
               | you can still request one - I always do because the ice
               | hurts my teeth).
        
               | nebula8804 wrote:
               | Are you referring to those new fancy French reusable
               | containers created due to new regulations? People were
               | going crazy over them on TikTok because of how cool they
               | looked. What do you think of them?
        
           | kayodelycaon wrote:
           | I worked at McDonald's briefly 15 years ago. Every single
           | person bagging would mark an order as completed when someone
           | started working on it and then use the recall button to see
           | what the order was.
        
             | crooked-v wrote:
             | Exactly the same as my experience working at one circa 2007
             | or so. It was something the managers would explicitly
             | instruct the line workers to do.
        
           | nebula8804 wrote:
           | If you go observe the restaurant (or work there for some
           | time) you'll notice that these failures generally occur
           | during crunch time because the screens that instruct what is
           | in the order become overfilled with too many orders.
           | Nevertheless, if you are present you can observe the build
           | process of your food and see that typically it is generally
           | within the correct time window.
           | 
           | >The staff are incentivised to just press everything through
           | the system asap regardless of the actual status of the food.
           | They're presumably performance-measured against targets and
           | aren't punished for just checking that everything went
           | through quickly regardless of the reality.
           | 
           | But at the end they are still required to deliver the food or
           | else there will be worse consequences. It is just not
           | realistic to expect perfection in a noisy system where you
           | can't exactly predict how many people will come during a busy
           | hour. Mcdonalds is trying to improve with their massive data
           | collection operations. Things such as reading your license
           | plates in the drive through are not only just a profit making
           | scheme: they help predict analytics on what you may order and
           | the goal is to improve wait times during busy hours.
        
         | theolivenbaum wrote:
         | We used to use an app from a startup for local orders that
         | would always say 17 minutes to pickup. They couldn't estimate
         | the time, so just used a number that didn't look like it was
         | hard coded. Took some time for us to realize the lie and stop
         | trusting it
        
         | nebula8804 wrote:
         | The Dominoes operation is pretty digitized. If its 15 minutes
         | away you can go and watch the order made live.
         | 
         | As soon as the order comes in, it pops up on their screen. Is
         | the restaurant busy? That would affect the time.
         | 
         | From there, the person assembles it (you can usually see this
         | from the order counter) and then he pops it into the oven with
         | the constantly moving rack.
         | 
         | This part is limited by the speed of the rack so there is a
         | lower time bound where you cannot go under or your pizza is
         | uncocked. Asked for well done? Well it goes back into the oven
         | after coming out.
         | 
         | If you are there you eliminate the time from when the pizza
         | comes out and it waits for the delivery driver to pick it up
         | and deliver it. He could be out delivering something else or
         | there could be traffic on the way to you.
         | 
         | You can walk in, place the order, and pay..then watch the order
         | process begin in front of you and get the best possible pizza.
        
       | exabrial wrote:
       | I used to think Apple was the king of UIs.
       | 
       | They have long departed from quality and functionality; Jobs has
       | a no nonsense approach where form followed functionality. If it
       | functioned properly, the form was intuitive. Apple UI interfaces
       | from the Jobs years were incredible. Nowadays, under forced
       | yearly redesign policy, we're reversed so far things are just
       | hidden and awkward.
       | 
       | Kinda funny: you force it and it sucks.
        
         | andsoitis wrote:
         | > I used to think Apple was the king of UIs.
         | 
         | The way I see it is that Apple excels at designing and building
         | UI patterns and systems (I don't think anyone comes close), but
         | they're terrible when it comes to the UI of actual software
         | products.
        
           | velcrovan wrote:
           | For UI patterns and systems, do you have a post-Jobs example?
           | 
           | I'm thinking the word in that last sentence should be
           | "excelled" (past tense).
        
             | agloe_dreams wrote:
             | I have one - The iPhone X's swipe navigation is brilliant.
             | There is a little WebOS in there in multitasking gestures
             | left and right, but it is such a straightforward system
             | that works.
        
               | velcrovan wrote:
               | When we say "UI patterns or systems" we mean frameworks
               | that provide high-quality defaults for all the software
               | written for that system. Card/swipe navigation is a
               | specific affordance of iOS -- like Alt+Tab switching on
               | desktop OSs -- not a pattern or system. Further, as you
               | mention, it was invented by Palm and copied by Apple
               | eight years later.
        
         | donatj wrote:
         | See: System Settings
         | 
         | System Preferences I could pretty intuitively find anything I
         | was looking for. The newer System Settings is basically
         | unusable outside of search
        
           | Jgrubb wrote:
           | My work laptop recently started having issues with the
           | keyboard so I got a loaner, an unopened M1 Pro. It was still
           | on an older version of the Mac OS, and I am so bummed that
           | they want it back.
           | 
           | The UI that you're referring to is malpractice.
        
           | wkat4242 wrote:
           | System preferences was a really poor design tbh. It just felt
           | so easy because it had been there so long and everyone had
           | the muscle memory.
           | 
           | The new one is not much better I agree. But the old one was
           | objectively not great in terms of UX Design.
           | 
           | The main problem with the new one in my opinion is that
           | they're shoehorning a mobile experience on the Mac. Something
           | Apple does more and more (and not just Apple, gnome does it
           | too)
        
             | imbnwa wrote:
             | >The main problem with the new one in my opinion is that
             | they're shoehorning a mobile experience on the Mac.
             | Something Apple does more and more (and not just Apple,
             | gnome does it too)
             | 
             | A cost effectiveness measure over a well-thought out one,
             | methinks
        
           | MajimasEyepatch wrote:
           | Honestly, I'm not even sure that this is a problem that can
           | be solved. There are too many settings you could access, with
           | no obvious single way to categorize them all. Search is
           | probably the best you can do.
        
           | bastardoperator wrote:
           | Does this include the use of cmd+spacebar? Personally, I feel
           | like I haven't had to open it outside of my search.
        
         | agloe_dreams wrote:
         | The best example of this is the macOS document proxies. They
         | were a sensical representation of an icon you can drag and
         | drop, now they are hidden under a hover of the title that
         | stupidly animates it out.
         | 
         | Anybody would would make a critical productivity feature a
         | hidden hover should be canned from a UX team. This choice was
         | defended by Alan Dye.
        
           | pimlottc wrote:
           | Sorry, what are document proxies?
           | 
           | EDIT: Oh, is this it? [0]. I can't say I ever noticed that
           | before (when it still existed)
           | 
           | 0: https://osxdaily.com/2014/08/20/open-files-new-app-proxy-
           | ico...
        
             | uxamanda wrote:
             | Maybe I am misunderstanding, but I just tried that flow
             | with a Pages document and it still works in Sonoma. Drag
             | the icon from the header, drop into an email. Now I'm
             | curious what the old feature was.
        
               | tomjakubowski wrote:
               | What's changed is that newer versions of the OS hide the
               | file proxy icon by default. You have to hover the cursor
               | over the title for a second to see it, or to interact
               | with it. Before, it was always visible, and ready to be
               | clicked + dragged.
        
         | amelius wrote:
         | > I used to think Apple was the king of UIs.
         | 
         | Heh. There was a time when you had to upgrade your OS by ...
         | first going into iTunes. Maybe this is still the case.
         | 
         | https://support.apple.com/en-us/108964
        
           | tomjakubowski wrote:
           | You're talking about iOS. We can only judge these things in
           | context. What was the first Android version where everyone
           | could receive updates for the OS over-the-air, not going
           | through a computer + USB port? And when did Apple support the
           | same for iOS?
        
       | socialentp wrote:
       | Steven Sinofsky wrote about this in the context of the early days
       | of Microsoft in "Don't ship the org chart"
       | https://hardcoresoftware.learningbyshipping.com/p/047-dont-s...
        
       | ivan_gammel wrote:
       | Many people refer to Conway's law here, but I'd argue that this
       | law is true only for the static organization design, where
       | structure is rigid and never changes. This law and and the title
       | of the link hide much more important dependency: organization is
       | a function of business requirements. System design is a function
       | of them too. It MAY happen that organization is designed first,
       | but it is not necessarily the case. Organization changes happen
       | all the time and systems tend to stay during those changes. Many
       | companies have subdivisions organized around the customer journey
       | or certain product topics, e.g. Acquisition tribe or B2B business
       | unit. Those structures work very well and do not reflect the
       | Conway's law (system architecture required in this case is often
       | org-wide and modular, requiring all org units to follow the same
       | design approach).
        
         | btbuildem wrote:
         | It's interesting to think of this in conjunction with the Peter
         | Principle. In any org that's existed long enough, you will have
         | a "crust" of people who have been promoted until they're too
         | incompetent for their position. If long enough time elapses,
         | these incumbents will account for most of the decision makers
         | in the org chart, from the root on down. Given how incentives
         | and motivations change with seniority, it's not a far stretch
         | to assume that they will want to remain where they are - cannot
         | be promoted any further, and would rather not lose current
         | status.
         | 
         | I know it's just a little thought exercise, but I see enough of
         | that reflected in the real world to pause and consider. I would
         | wager that in majority of cases, organizational structure does
         | indeed remain static, at least in orgs that live on long enough
         | timescales.
        
         | MajimasEyepatch wrote:
         | Conway's law would still apply in a company where the org chart
         | is changing. Obviously old systems don't disappear in a reorg,
         | but new ones will reflect the communication structures at the
         | time that they were built.
         | 
         | In companies that go through frequent reorgs, you'll often see
         | a lot of "scar tissue," where you can tell that one set of
         | services date back to a particular epoch. For example, these
         | services are from a different time when the company tried to
         | enter a new market, and here's a bunch of messy microservices
         | from when the company added a bunch of developers after the
         | Series C and the engineering processes failed to keep up. And
         | along the way, you'll see a bunch of half-finished migrations
         | that require both the old and new systems to be maintained
         | simultaneously.
         | 
         | In your example, if that org is adapted to frequently shifting
         | team boundaries with some central top-down architectural
         | authority (CTO, architect, committee, whatever), then Conway's
         | law would predict exactly the kind of modular architecture with
         | a "shared design approach" that you describe.
        
           | btbuildem wrote:
           | When I look at a nightmare scenario like Salesforce, I am
           | inclined to agree with you.
        
           | ivan_gammel wrote:
           | >but new ones will reflect the communication structures at
           | the time that they were built
           | 
           | It is correlation vs causality question. Conway law may
           | actually be the former rather than the latter.
        
           | dredmorbius wrote:
           | I spent a fair bit of my career working with a piece of
           | software which has evolved across a number of different
           | operating systems, and, one presumes, development teams.
           | 
           | Among the reasons I refer to myself, tongue in cheek, as a
           | software anthropologist, is what I'd recognised from that
           | software: it bears the marks of the major platforms it
           | evolved through: IBM mainframes, VMS, Unix, MS Windows, and
           | ultimately an Apple Macintosh variant (though principally the
           | tool now seems to be PC-oriented).
           | 
           | Similarly, on Unix, one can often identify applications'
           | origins based on their toolkits and widgets: Athena Xaw
           | widgets, Motif, VUE, KDE, GNOME, etc. Though often criticised
           | for the lack of consistency, I'm aware that different tools
           | reveal their affordances by the toolkits (and GUI
           | presentation and behaviour) they reveal. Similarly BSD vs.
           | GNU command-line tools, and various other command origins.
           | Particularly notably, the 'dd' command, which comes from, and
           | borrows syntax from, IBM TCL, a mainframe environment.
           | 
           | Digging deeper, Unix's origins in Multics, the B programming
           | language, etc., are also apparent.
           | 
           | Again, this is somewhat confounding tools and teams, though
           | I'd suggest that the principles are similar and related. The
           | upshot is that past decisions get layered into software, with
           | the oldest layers typically closest to the core.
        
       | alberth wrote:
       | Domino Pizza tracker
       | 
       | The article is centered around the pizza tracker, but I thought
       | that tracker was fake.
       | 
       | Just for illustrative purposes.
       | 
       | Is it not?
       | 
       | https://www.the-sun.com/money/6927297/dominos-pizza-tracker-...
        
         | Larrikin wrote:
         | I'm sure some MBA douche presented the calculation at
         | headquarters to save the money by making it fake, but when it
         | was first released there was a massive campaign showing
         | Domino's workers getting the orders printed out and hitting
         | buttons at various parts of the process that actually did
         | update the tracker.
        
           | subroutine wrote:
           | I'm not sure about Dominos, but the last time I ordered Papa
           | Johns, the pizza tracker had a disclaimer that said it was
           | "for entertainment purposes only, and does not reflect actual
           | events"
        
         | diggan wrote:
         | That article is basically "they say, they say" argument between
         | two Twitter users, not sure one could come to any conclusion
         | based on that. It's also a The Sun article, FWIW.
         | 
         | I've always thought the tracker was real, at least here in
         | Spain (it looks different than the US one in the article
         | pictures), as it always seems to have changed at different
         | intervals. Could also be just randomized a bit I guess. Long
         | time ago I ordered from Domino anyways.
        
         | 8organicbits wrote:
         | > includes the name of the employee baking each pizza
         | 
         | Yikes, I wouldn't put that info online. What's the point?
        
       | shubhamjain wrote:
       | The whole post is based on a questionable assumption that Domino
       | Pizza Tracker accurately reflects the status of the Pizza, when
       | it could just be a dumb timer based on a statistical average.
       | Sure, the Pizza Delivery person in the last step has to be
       | accurate, but that's simpler than tracking if the Pizza is in the
       | oven. As for the point itself, I think the real-time status
       | tracking is a very, very small subset of UIs. Yes, it's difficult
       | to deliver if the organization isn't designed around this, but
       | most sucky UIs aren't limited by not having the data.
        
         | rileymat2 wrote:
         | Its not perfect, but at Starbucks, the "working on your drink"
         | notification comes when they rip it off the machine, so it is
         | kind of real time. (Kind of, because often they rip off 3 or 4
         | and stick them to the wall)
        
         | velcrovan wrote:
         | > it could just be a dumb timer based on a statistical average
         | 
         | The post makes this point explicitly. It doesn't sound like you
         | read the whole thing.
        
           | shubhamjain wrote:
           | My bad! I raced through the article, skipping the important
           | bit.
        
       | btbuildem wrote:
       | Seeing all the mentions of Conway's Law here jogged something in
       | my mind -- could one assert the converse and "reverse engineer"
       | the org structure of a company by examining the systems it has
       | designed?
       | 
       | This could be super useful when considering the next place of
       | employment for example; the organizational dysfunctions and
       | idiosyncrasies only become apparent once you've jumped in with
       | both feet.
        
         | 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
         | Legend has it that Google produces a new chat program every
         | year or two when a high-up manager wants a promotion.
         | 
         | Microsoft also seems to have generational UI revamps. There's a
         | funny bathtub curve where Win32 has outlived many of its
         | replacements.
        
       | deepsun wrote:
       | > where the step from "order received" to "pizza in the oven"
       | happens only because of a timer in the UI
       | 
       | Then don't lie. Instead of the status, just say outright that it
       | takes up to 5 minutes for the pizza to get in the oven. And show
       | a timer.
        
       | hcarvalhoalves wrote:
       | Sometimes, UIs are designed with unrealistic expectations and
       | mismatches of how processes work in reality. This is maybe lost
       | on today's "native digital" generation, but anyone who worked at
       | organizations a while back should understand this intuitively.
       | 
       | Back then, processes inside companies where paper-driven, a
       | variation of "produce some kind of document, pass it along to
       | another department, get a stamped copy/receipt to prove it's been
       | done". I always use this example when designing architectures and
       | UIs: if you couldn't design the same process as paper being
       | passed around, the design is missing something. You need to
       | really grok the company structure and the domain to design
       | something sensible.
        
         | couchand wrote:
         | Yes! And, the killer feature of paper that no digital UI has
         | yet to fully capture is the margin.
         | 
         | If your business process doesn't have a form field for some
         | data, but the person on the ground understands that it's
         | valuable, it's naturally scribbled onto the margins, and then
         | worked into the next version of the form.
         | 
         | If you're using nearly any digital UI, the feedback loop (if it
         | exists at all) is a side channel.
         | 
         | More businesses should just use paper.
        
           | 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
           | If PDF editing tools were a little better and the average
           | users' file name habits weren't ghoulish we could have
           | digital paper.
        
             | BeFlatXIII wrote:
             | What naming habits would you like to see the average user
             | adopt?
        
               | doubled112 wrote:
               | If I never see people prepending and appending seemingly
               | random versions again, I'd be thrilled.
               | 
               | draft_document.pdf document.pdf final_document.pdf
               | final_final_document.pdf document_final.pdf
               | document_v2.pdf final_final_document_v3.pdf
               | 
               | Which one do I use?
        
               | thechao wrote:
               | This is why naively surfacing file systems to users is
               | such a mistake. My gut feeling says that documents should
               | always contain all of their revisions -- with a time
               | slider, and marginalia always enabled. However,
               | _organization_ of the documents seems like a critical
               | issue. I can tell you, from my wife 's/kiddos desktops,
               | that organization means "one big pile". I strongly
               | suspect that "one big pile" _is_ the right answer, no
               | matter how much it pains my programmer 's heart.
        
               | doubled112 wrote:
               | Is it any different than real life?
               | 
               | Some people organize their entire lives into boxes and
               | containers and labelled drawers. Some people have,
               | basically, a big pile that they just shuffle through when
               | they need something.
               | 
               | For example, I prefer a backpack that's one or two large
               | compartments. Yet they sell backpacks with dozens of
               | little slots. That's too much for me, but somebody
               | thought people wanted it, so somebody must. Over
               | organization doesn't work for me.
        
               | layer8 wrote:
               | The old Word document format (*.doc) could, by accident,
               | contain older versions of the document, as a side effect
               | of how editing operations worked on the internal data
               | structures (not purging all deleted content right away,
               | to optimize editing speed, or something along those
               | lines). This made for some embarrassing cases when third
               | parties received documents with hidden content they
               | weren't supposed to know about.
               | 
               | And we all know of the numerous cases where text was
               | blacked out in PDFs by adding black rectangles on top of
               | it, but the text was still contained in the document.
        
           | hcarvalhoalves wrote:
           | > More businesses should just use paper.
           | 
           | ... or rather, digital processes shouldn't throw away the
           | benefits of paper.
           | 
           | E.g.: document databases instead of fixed-schema tabular
           | (paper can accept more data than was anticipated), append-
           | only databases instead of update-in-place (paper doesn't
           | forget). I'm a big fan of Datomic and similar databases
           | because of that.
        
           | skybrian wrote:
           | Why can't this be done with a textarea for notes? Any chat
           | system or ticket system has this.
        
             | timeagain wrote:
             | Working for a company that has mixed paper/electronic
             | documentation. I can't overstate how useful it is to
             | highlight, circle, and/or cross-out sections of a form.
             | Also to see /what/ was crossed out to know the history of
             | the document.
             | 
             | You might say, "well we can add these formatting features
             | and make the form elements removable and...". But if you
             | know you know. Asking "normal people" to do all this in
             | markup is an insta-fail. Most of us are caterers, not
             | programmers.
        
               | coding123 wrote:
               | AI can handle the mixed form... Perhaps now with LLMs we
               | can just scan all the stuff with crossed out words and
               | cicled conditions and have the ai make it searchable.
               | 
               | Then again we should always ask ourselves if a drug
               | dealer would ever recommend someone stop doing drugs.
        
               | ben_w wrote:
               | LLMs certainly can cope with disordered notes scribbled
               | into the metaphorical margins, and OCR can usually turn
               | literal scribbles in literal margins into something
               | approximating what was written, buuuuuuuuut the AI we
               | currently have is just good enough to be _dangerous_ if
               | you tried using it this way.
               | 
               | On the other hand, the last 15 months have been "if you
               | don't like the state of the art AI, wait a week", so I
               | may be out of date with that assessment.
        
             | throwway120385 wrote:
             | Discoverability. I can't count the number of times I've had
             | to ask phone support people to please read the notes that
             | the last agent took. If you have a paper form, someone
             | marking in the margins is immediately apparent.
             | 
             | Hypermedia didn't go far enough, in the sense that it
             | overlooks how people form relationships with specific
             | documents. In case of margin notes, individuals take an
             | instance of a document template and mark it up to customize
             | it. They recognized that the shape of the form was not the
             | only shape the document could take and they knew that the
             | form was an extension of their authority. So if it didn't
             | make sense they changed it.
             | 
             | You can't really reproduce that experience with hypertext
             | because there's no concept of "this document doesn't apply
             | to this situation let me, the individual user, change it to
             | communicate something unique." And because humans aren't
             | reviewing any of these documents, there's nobody there to
             | interpret it correctly even if you could. Essentially the
             | Internet and web form design and replacement of humans with
             | machines has involved a great abdication of authority from
             | the front-line employees who process these forms. I would
             | argue that it's becoming the downfall of our modern
             | society. If a programmer or analyst couldn't envision your
             | situation, nobody works at the company who can do anything
             | about it.
        
           | BeFlatXIII wrote:
           | > And, the killer feature of paper that no digital UI has yet
           | to fully capture is the margin.
           | 
           | This is THE reason why, in the year of our LORD 2024,
           | physicians still HATE electronic medical records. Margins,
           | sticky notes, and red ink you can circle anywhere you d~~n
           | well please, not organized data easily parsed during
           | discovery.
        
             | BobaFloutist wrote:
             | It's not 1:1, but from observing some math professors,
             | tablets with a stylus are a partial solution to this.
        
               | shuntress wrote:
               | Whether or not it is literally hand written is not
               | important.
               | 
               | The thing that matters is that it is unstructured.
        
               | naasking wrote:
               | You can support a structured way to add unstructured
               | data. This can be useful a s a stopgap to understand
               | where the structured data is inadequate, but I can become
               | a hindrance if they don't use the structured data all.
        
             | jimbokun wrote:
             | With the recent discussion on here about using a massive
             | single text file as a scheduling and planning tool and todo
             | list, and some developers who still carry around a paper
             | notebook to capture notes and ideas, you would think this
             | desire by users of our applications would be better
             | understood.
        
         | manvillej wrote:
         | If it doesn't work with sticky notes, it doesn't work.
         | 
         | the rest is just scale.
        
       | kylecordes wrote:
       | I have noticed that the Panera Bread status tracker used to
       | provide good information, but doesn't anymore. It frequently says
       | an order is done while it is still being worked on.
       | 
       | Might be a UI/Organization mismatch, as described in this
       | article.
       | 
       | Or maybe it's the staff intentionally marking things done early,
       | to game metrics expectations from management.
        
       | tsylba wrote:
       | The Domino's pizza tracking bits is a funny one for those whom
       | had read Snowcrash, where a whole earlier section of the book is
       | about the advancement of the pizza delivery industry.
       | 
       | I don't know, it seem to me the 90s had a very dystopian view of
       | future Pizza Hut.
       | 
       | << The Deliverator stands tall, your pie in thirty minutes or you
       | can have it free, shoot the driver, take his car, file a class-
       | action suit. The Deliverator has been working this job for six
       | months, a rich and lengthy tenure by his standards, and has never
       | delivered a pizza in more than twenty-one minutes. [..] Pizza
       | delivery is a major industry. A managed industry. People went to
       | CosaNostra Pizza University four years just to learn it. Came in
       | its doors unable to write an English sentence, from Abkhazia,
       | Rwanda, Guanajuato, South Jersey, and came out knowing more about
       | pizza than a Bedouin knows about sand. And they had studied this
       | problem. Graphed the frequency of doorway delivery-time disputes.
       | Wired the early Deliverators to record, then analyze, the
       | debating tactics, the voice-stress histograms, the distinctive
       | grammatical structures employed by white middle-class Type A
       | Burbclave occupants who against all logic had decided that this
       | was the place to take their personal Custerian stand against all
       | that was stale and deadening in their lives: they were going to
       | lie, or delude themselves, about the time of their phone call and
       | get themselves a free pizza; no, they deserved a free pizza along
       | with their life, liberty, and pursuit of whatever, it was fucking
       | inalienable. >>
        
       | bjnewman85 wrote:
       | Umm, the argument in the article seems self-defeating. UI=f(org)
       | except we end up with the same UI with radically different orgs
       | because we can just f() over the differences with dark design
       | patterns and users can't tell the difference.
       | 
       | I can show you anything in a UI - only good orgs can develop
       | valuable products from those UIs.
        
       | vonnik wrote:
       | This is a variation of "you ship your org chart."
       | 
       | After hearing the outbound version of this truism, I discovered
       | that the inbound version is also true; ie "you buy your org
       | chart."
       | 
       | Anyone selling to v large organizations, corporate or government,
       | will know what I mean. Bloated and dysfunctional orgs with
       | eternal sales cycles buy from bloated and dysfunctional orgs that
       | can survive eternal sales cycles, and which are willing to sell
       | bloated and dysfunctional products to satisfy arbitrary criteria.
       | 
       | This is one of many reasons why startups have a hard time selling
       | to very large orgs.
        
       | cratermoon wrote:
       | I order from Domino's now and then. I've noticed that someone
       | named Scott seems to be working preparing pizzas at all hours on
       | all days. It didn't take me very long to figure out that the
       | tracker was just putting in a placeholder event. The actual
       | delivery tracker seems to work OK, though.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-02-20 23:01 UTC)