> But having a version tree, forking and merging, having to deal multiple timelines and the graphs that represent them -- that's where you lose people.
There's no good reason why that should be the case. E.g., one could imagine the guts of the "copy-pasting files" UI being a VCS. That would keep the original 100% of the userbase plus allow whatever percentage to level up if/when the need arises (or go "back in time" in the event of a major screw-up).
It's just that software UX in 2025 is typically very bad. The real axiom: the longer you run an application, the more likely it will do the opposite of its intended purpose.
Oops, the word "stash" in git has an idiosyncratic meaning. That content has been removed from the history I was trying to keep. Fuck.
Oops, "Start" in Windows pauses interactivity and animation until ads are ready to be displayed in the upcoming dialog. Fuck!
Especially in the latter case, I don't think users are deterred by the cognitive load required to interact with the interface. It's probably more a case of them being deterred because the goddamned stupid thing isn't doing what it's supposed to.
In theory you can have these "zero cost abstractions" but in practice I don't think so. The user manual gets thicker. Concepts like 'delete permanently' and backup/restore get more complicated. Users will get confronted by scary "advanced users only" warnings in the interface. Some enthusiast blogger or youtuber will create content highlighting those advanced features and then regular users will get themselves in trouble. Customer support gets way more complicated because you always have to consider the possibility that the user has (unknowingly) used these advanced features. If you put buttons in the interface users will press those buttons. That's just a fact of life. Advanced features always come at a cost. Sometimes that cost is worth it, but only sometimes.
There's no good reason why that should be the case. E.g., one could imagine the guts of the "copy-pasting files" UI being a VCS. That would keep the original 100% of the userbase plus allow whatever percentage to level up if/when the need arises (or go "back in time" in the event of a major screw-up).
It's just that software UX in 2025 is typically very bad. The real axiom: the longer you run an application, the more likely it will do the opposite of its intended purpose.
Oops, the word "stash" in git has an idiosyncratic meaning. That content has been removed from the history I was trying to keep. Fuck.
Oops, "Start" in Windows pauses interactivity and animation until ads are ready to be displayed in the upcoming dialog. Fuck!
Especially in the latter case, I don't think users are deterred by the cognitive load required to interact with the interface. It's probably more a case of them being deterred because the goddamned stupid thing isn't doing what it's supposed to.