<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@mcc" class="u-url mention">@<span>mcc</span></a></span> <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.transneptune.net/@owen" class="u-url mention">@<span>owen</span></a></span> I do think that reusable concepts are important, whether it&#39;s computing or e.g. physical metalworking tools</p>

<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@whitequark" class="u-url mention">@<span>whitequark</span></a></span> <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.transneptune.net/@owen" class="u-url mention">@<span>owen</span></a></span> I am pretty sure I encountered these real-world ideas, or at least understood their connection to the computer ideas, *after* encountering them on the computer. I think the metaphors are still useful because they are *some kind of concept* that gets reused. It has a name and its use within the software is helpful because the software, at least, is consistent about its meaning, even if it&#39;s otherwise a pure floating signifier</p>

<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://adhd.irenes.space/@ireneista" class="u-url mention">@<span>ireneista</span></a></span> <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@mcc" class="u-url mention">@<span>mcc</span></a></span> <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.transneptune.net/@owen" class="u-url mention">@<span>owen</span></a></span> (to add to this and the other sub-thread, I think WIMP is quite alright but it would be preposterous to say that it is inherently intuitive or requires no learning)</p>

<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@mcc" class="u-url mention">@<span>mcc</span></a></span> <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.transneptune.net/@owen" class="u-url mention">@<span>owen</span></a></span> for example I have never seen &quot;a folder&quot; with &quot;files&quot; and I did not have the background to comprehend those concepts because I was not an office worker. I have probably been in an office a few times but I never made the connection because I&#39;ve never used those objects much less understood why somebody would care that much about them</p>

<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@mcc" class="u-url mention">@<span>mcc</span></a></span> <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.transneptune.net/@owen" class="u-url mention">@<span>owen</span></a></span> I actually quite vividly remember learning desktop computing as a child (Win95) and I found the metaphors being used borderline incomprehensible. I learned them as something that is a given and only years later I figured out why people made it this way</p><p>so I don&#39;t really buy this line of argument, personally</p>

<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@whitequark" class="u-url mention">@<span>whitequark</span></a></span> <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.transneptune.net/@owen" class="u-url mention">@<span>owen</span></a></span> my ideology remains that of the 1991 macintosh, that there are some things that can be intuitive to a true newbie. there used to be a Theory of this.</p><p>part of this is the &quot;visual metaphor&quot; i.e. draw a connection to a real-world thing. post-2010 design rejects this because making reference to real-world objects can mean referencing things that either lack universality or have themselves been obsoleted by computers. but i think post-2010 design is worse, so something there worked</p>

<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@mcc" class="u-url mention">@<span>mcc</span></a></span> <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.transneptune.net/@owen" class="u-url mention">@<span>owen</span></a></span> i came here to say what Owen just did. any use of a new tool at all, even if it comes down to &quot;intuition&quot;, requires learning; and &quot;intuition&quot; is just learning you&#39;ve done at some earlier point anyway</p>

<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.transneptune.net/@owen" class="u-url mention">@<span>owen</span></a></span> oh i mean. i think there are some kinds of software that work like the thing i&#39;m describing in this thread (&quot;i shouldn&#39;t have to think, it should just conform to my intuition&quot;) and sometimes it works like you&#39;re describing (&quot;models are powerful, the user should learn the model&quot;). Maybe there&#39;s a synthesis where the software is &quot;self-teaching&quot;, the user adopts a mental model without knowing it. Maybe that&#39;s what you were trying to say. I am spitballing here not attempting to produce Theory</p>

<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@mcc" class="u-url mention">@<span>mcc</span></a></span> How would you characterize the two types?</p>