back
9 comments
I really appreciated the end of this article where he argues that some users could appreciate a service more if they realized how hard a problem it is solving.

It makes me think of the first iMacs having clear backs so you could see inside and see how complicated but tidy it was inside. Contrast that with a modern iMac where you'd have a hard time even opening it.

I think most people on HN belong to a segment of the population that wants to know how things work, that is always asking questions, that grew up taking things apart to see inside. As much as I wish it was different, most people are not like us. They want things to just work, they ask for the elevator pitch, they want the milk not the cow.

If you're making something for the HN crowd, then by all means give them a peek behind the curtain. But if you're selling mass market, keep it simple and abstract away all the "messy" details.

I do like this post and think it is well written, but I think that people are sort of misrepresenting this "no-ui" thing. Is there really anyone that holds the extreme viewpoint of either end of the debate? Is there really anyone that does not agree with the sentiment of the last 2 sentences here? I don't think so.

Anyway, I really like Scott Berkun's post on the matter: http://scottberkun.com/2013/the-no-ui-debate-is-rubbish/

It reminds me of something where I live (http://www.aiachicago.org/special_features/2011dea/awards.as...). The architects obviously recognized the beauty and impressiveness of the HVAC systems and wanted to showcase them.

As a software guy, I'm always a little in awe of HVAC, which I don't know very well. It's cool to stop and think about the complex flow chart of materials and skills involved in making something like this. Think of just one of those pipes, and all the engineering that goes into them. You have to make steel with the right properties for pressurized water or steam. You have to to cut and drill the steel to precise tolerances. You need a way to move them into place (they're very heavy). You may or may not have to weld them once they're in place. So on and so on.

Pictures like these are a nice reminder of the true depth and breadth of our technology stack. It doesn't bottom out at the CPU. And it's amazing that no one person understands the whole stack, but it all works in concert.

Most basements don't look like Google's basements. Here's what I enjoy seeing, or find remarkable:

* No leaks

* No rust

* Flow directions identified

* Flow content/category/origin/destination identified by color

* Room to move replacement parts in and inoperative ones out

* Equipment pads for... I don't know, but it looks good

* Engineering, not haphazard patching

* No people

This is fascinating. It's true that physical metaphors play a key role in getting people to embrace emerging technology.

Two obvious examples are the "desktop" and the "slideshow." One is based on the metaphor of a physical desktop. The other is based on a slide projector. You can put a "file" in the "trash" and know that you're getting rid of it, for instance, without knowing anything about the machine's filesystem.

The problem is when the purpose and power of a technology are at odds with the original metaphor on which it's based. For example, comparing presentation software to a slide projector helped people understand how to use it, but do humans really think in terms of slides? Before PowerPoint, a lot of great orators moved fluidly through their presentations, pacing through the audience and engaging the crowd.

I think that many people embrace and stick with metaphors because they're comfortable, even when they're not necessarily the most efficient or useful. Maybe we could deliver more effective presentations by not fragmenting our ideas into slides. Maybe we could treat our data more responsibly by not believing that it exists in a cushy, omnipotent cloud.

You could just as easily say TCP/IP in reality is just hype to disguise electrical and optical signaling, and prevents the user from appreciating all that goes into transmitting data, gives them a inflated sense of what's possible in the universe, and is about out sourcing data transmissions, false senses of reliability etc.

Additionally the argument that "no interface" means you won't be able to troubleshoot something is an overly literal interpretation of the age old concept. As though "no interface" is not just a design ideal, which may not always be possible, but rather a movement to force round pegs into square holes. A more forward thinking point of view would be what innovation can be made in these areas, vs. looking backwards at how things used to work.

Why should the user care about Google's production costs, and sit around thinking about the 'sweat'? Why are they obligated to do as you wish? And how would you realistically motivate them to do that, when it's usually not interesting to them?
My understanding is that the term "Cloud" comes from the cloud-shaped symbol used as an abstraction of network infrastructure in system diagrams.
I really loved the pics, i just drooled with the colors and the shininess of the place. Everything is so new.