Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Win11 explorer bug?
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 04:00:23 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <vjefoe$23fh4$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qieclj5ca2dsc2fnpufpg51fn7qt0u2peh@4ax.com>
 <vj6im4$cf7f$1@dont-email.me> <dcselj96kvngr6gid7mje3phabj2sp876t@4ax.com>
 <vj91de$t4hr$2@dont-email.me> <jcoglj5c0cmprqek68tah1euht1amhu9ko@4ax.com>
 <vj9q8g$11i0t$2@dont-email.me> <13vgljdqp79a2onuijph2om08fk99u2fdm@4ax.com>
 <vjablv$14se5$1@dont-email.me> <addhljp8i0d5t42lavnd37a8e883ijhsqt@4ax.com>
 <vjaeii$14se5$2@dont-email.me> <gquhljd83745shtckfjgtd5u6iphkprprc@4ax.com>
 <vjblle$1fd6a$1@dont-email.me> <gsnjljdvnhu7m25ops26ek9lvca5eqvk2n@4ax.com>
 <vjec62$22pn8$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 12:00:32 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ee6d8dc472cd575fee80a2b357a49690";
	logging-data="2211364"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Q910J5HGxMqle+oBdWD4g"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kBFksLYnF8rVyitvejXTjdM0rmw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vjec62$22pn8$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3228

On 12/12/2024 2:59 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> Probably because it is *so* bug.
> (typo for big but Freudian slip seems OK)

Once something becomes "complex" (i.e., too large to fit in a
single brain), it becomes difficult to understand the repercussions
of specific design decisions -- because you can't remember
EVERYTHING with which they interact.

[This is why big pieces of software are shit.  For "efficiency"
(and lack of design vision), everything gets dropped into one
big executable.  This is the norm for Windows, Android, etc.
By contrast, in UN*X, one would plumb existing applications
together to meet some new need -- instead of folding the new
functionality into that one big app!]

We have a stove/oven that has the ideal universal interface
(in the mind of some idiot):   a big knob as SELECTOR that
one can PRESS to make the current selection.  A "back"
button as an afterthought.

But, it's the SOLE interface.

Works as expected to "select" cooking conditions.  But, the
designer/coder obviously forgot that multiple things can be
happening concurrently -- all of which require the user
to interact via that ONE interface!

So, if the user is in the process of doing one such thing and
some OTHER thing demands attention...?  Where is the interface
bound at that point in time?  Is he still doing that first
thing?  Or, interacting with that (asynchronous) second thing?

Eventually, the user resorts to turning the appliance OFF
(dedicated button to do so).  Which aborts BOTH tasks.  And,
leaves hi having to restart BOTH!

Yeah, I'm REALLY eager to turn on the factory's WiFi interface
for the stove/oven... NOT!