Post #3143601

2026-05-21 21:03 UTC

@thief_of_fire@infosec.exchange @Gargron@mastodon.social rephrased it. Edit here too: this is btw also relevant in security UX. Depending on your target audience, you may enable informative security for technical users (more explanations about what the software is doing) or less for people who find it confusing (invisible security) and just want to use it for specific purposes other than security. Messenger security is very interesting in that regard. You can never build perfect systems for everybody, that's a given. But if you want your thing to work for as many as possible and get used (!), you need to consider majority needs first. Whether you implement minority wishes later is up to many other factors. MySpace was probably great (never used it), but it also had the advantage of being the first big SSN. The growth of Facebook (as much as I hate meta) shows how different concepts can outperform others if they apply radical usability focused on majority users.

Replies (1)

@Epic_Null@infosec.exchange 2026-05-21 23:36

@odr_k4tana@infosec.exchange @thief_of_fire@infosec.exchange @Gargron@mastodon.social I feel like this is where: Our relatively new idea of "One thing for everyone" breaks downThe concept of Usability takes on false meaning. Garon is right to call out exposure to the technical as a contributing factor to developing interest and literacy. Opportunity helps develop interests! But you are also right that most people do not care or want to know. They just want to complete the task at hand! Balancing the two is a hard problem, but I would like to bring the focus onto the parts of our experience that are less usable, presumably in the name of usability. Places where you can't handle odd situations becase they are not the easy ones, and thus are not supported. Places where "It just works" becomes "Okay it didn't work. What do I do about that"

Open ##3143602