

That makes us about the same age then.
Yeah, I am not arguing “all symbols bad”, more than we are trying to push symbols where it could be questionable. Also these symbols still need to be learned: talking of my mother for instance, I absolutely remember having to teach her that the X was for closing the window, and having to do it multiple times. I don’t argue the usefulness of the X over a “quit” or “close” button btw. Just that this has to be learned too. That’s fine.
That’s a bit of a chicken and egg situation though. Would some settings not be useful to almost anyone, even if they all knew about it? Absolutely, so it should be harder to access. Are there features that would be better for a lot of users but barely anyone knows about because of this? Certainly true too. And that’s being charitable to companies, and assuming that they collect and present data as fairly as possible internally rather than use it in a way that makes a case for what they want to push… And yeah, we aren’t Microsoft target, but I’d argue most companies share this trend. Even some open source projects buy into that when not necessary (imo).
And yeah, there is a good amount of subjectivity here of course. I think we (probably?) both agree with saying that making things simpler is not inherently bad, it’s good even. I was trying to argue we are making a lot of things “simplistic” instead. As an aside, MS developing PowerShell is a form of admission that, for certain tasks, command line is better suited than graphical user interfaces. So yes, automatic jumps between paradigm could, and should, be argued on a case by case basis rather than blindly following it.





A protest.