@MatejLach @Wolf480pl @cbowdon

Also why build a state of the art shit whose shape has beed already defined by #Google instead of building something new and better?
Something following a totally different vision?

@Shamar
I think to pull regular users in, we'd have to start with today's web. But once we have sway in the committees, you can begin to redefine what state of the art web should look like.

@Wolf480pl @cbowdon

@MatejLach @Wolf480pl @cbowdon

I think we need a #CERN of #Informatics, but it should start from a simple vision and build what it takes to get there from the ground up.

I have a vision to propose: all people should be able to read, understand and modify each software they use or feed with their data.

Modern Web is not going to survive such vision, so building a browser is wasting money imho.

@Shamar@mastodon social It won't work. Just take some time to, say, explain recursion or graph algorithms, image compression or even cryptography math to a totally untrained user. We will never get to a point of end users to read or understand their software. IMHO, trying to do so is a waste of time that could better be spent on building more ethical solutions that just work for this crowd.
@MatejLach @Wolf480pl@niu.moe @cbowdon

@z428 @MatejLach @Wolf480pl @cbowdon My position is that they should be *able* to (perhaps with a little training), but not obligated to.

@alcinnz @z428 @MatejLach @Wolf480pl @cbowdon

Guys, that's just because we are at the hieroglyphs of #Informatics.

If it's difficult to explain it's because it's primitive. Let's invent the right alphabet and every kid will be able to learn programming at the primary school.

@Shamar We're at a point where some adults have issues understanding higher math, some even have real issues learning to master natural language to understand complex texts or express themselves. And we actually did invent an alphabet to help these folks: Icons. Symbols. Easy interactions. So far this works well. Will we be able to do meaningful programming on that level?
@alcinnz @MatejLach @Wolf480pl@niu.moe @cbowdon

@z428 @Shamar @alcinnz @MatejLach @Wolf480pl @cbowdon in simpler systems, the meaning of "meaningful programming" might be a lot different than it is in bloated corporate software. just want to get that noted.

@grainloom @z428 @alcinnz @MatejLach @Wolf480pl @cbowdon

We need to be like Moses.

We can all see how badly broken is current IT.
We can all see how much power we have (which ultimately is much much more we are fooled to think).
We call all see how hard corporations try to lock us in, layer over layer.

Can we think the promised land?
No.
Just like ancient scribes couldn't think of a phonetic alphabet.

@grainloom @z428 @alcinnz @MatejLach @Wolf480pl @cbowdon

But we can try new roads.

We can experiment.

We can teach kids that they can reinvent the future in a different way.

Not just with our lessons but with our code and our example.

It IS possible.
Yes there's a lot of complexity to subdue, we still lack fundamental tools like Egyptians lacked the number zero.
But we need #hope to look for them! ;-)

@Shamar I think we very often fall victim to oversimplification because we have totally lost sight of how incredibly much specialized we already are - and how extremely basic and "trivial" some of the issues users are struggling with actually are. Google, Apple, ... are successful because they do better here, no matter why they do that.
@grainloom @alcinnz @MatejLach @Wolf480pl@niu.moe @cbowdon

@z428

They do 'better' because they, through inordinate market power accrued through tactics at least as shady as anti-competitive hiring practices, get to define what 'better' means.

@Shamar @grainloom @alcinnz @MatejLach @Wolf480pl @cbowdon

@deejoe No. They *do* better because they made technology available to users in a way "accessible" to these. They do things such as thinking about "target groups" or user personas and actual requirements in term of usability as well. They do that for profit, and of course they use marketing for that, but in the end WhatsApp, Google, Facebook *did* make technology accessible to people who never used a computer before - 1/4

@deejoe @Shamar @grainloom @alcinnz @MatejLach @Wolf480pl@niu.moe @cbowdon We can try to ignore this or argue it away but the amount of people using these channels and tools (both because they are easy and/or because they aren't able to use any other tools) possibly will not care - 2/4

Follow

@deejoe @Shamar @grainloom @alcinnz @MatejLach @Wolf480pl@niu.moe @cbowdon "Better", to them, is not what marketing sells them. Better, to them, is what works for them - 3/4

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!