 Εντάξει, ας δεν πέρασε να σημήτες, πράγμαστε, Michael. Σας ευχαριστούμε. Τιούς αφαιώς. Ο δημόνας είναι η δημόνωσης εργασίας ή η δημόνωση για τη δημόνωση των αγγέντες, το συστήρατο ή η εξαιρετική δημόνωση. Ο Άντες Βάζας είναι κάθε ότι η λυμή μπορεί να γράφει σε συνεργή γιατί η δημόνωση είναι πρόσπροτεχή. Ο Άντες Βάζας είναι η δημόνωση που η δημόνωση είναι πρόσπροτεχή. Ήνθε Εύσο, είμαι ο Μυκλείς Μετρεω. Είμαι σχέδρος σε οι δυνατότητες και δυνατατικά εκκλησ ug home, τώρα, και εμπλήθει ότι αντιμετωπίτες δυνατότητες επίσης χλείφεταιεεται canvas για να προοδεσάξει το εξέξυν μας που δυνατότητες προζάτει. Η δυνατότητα και δυνατότητες χρειάζει να μην προοδελταίστε τη δυνατότητα. Βυσacja και δυνατότητα μη είναι δυνατότητα γιατί να μην στηλεύει τους. το name of ease of use, security, or good looks. But the user, that uses something most easily, the most secure user, the happiest user, is the one that knows how anything works. So making something automagically work will cause a few moments of initial delight, but the effects in the long term are exactly the opposite. I realized this by showing the incredible advances in deep learning and neural image manipulation to friends and coworkers during the past few years. People that don't understand the complexity of the system involved are the least impressed. Technology is magic for them and can do anything. There's a story I read when I was little which described a family dinner during which one of the adults starts floating over the table. Despite what one would think, the children are the ones that are the least amazed. They are used to seeing amazing new things all the time. Adults, on the other hand, know that floating over the table is impossible and are genuinely surprised. Trying to make technology look like magic helps keep our users' childlike, which as good as that sound, it's not. You might wonder why I mentioned clickbait and fake news during the notes of the presentation. It's because I believe that fake news calls for universal backdoors and conspiracy theories all have one thing in common. They stem from the inability of the crowd to distinguish between what is impossible and what's possible or improbable. The ability to do that improves with a firmer understanding of how things work. Unless everything is reduced to a black box, only the elusive expert understands how things work. In fact, nobody does. All the things are just some of black boxes and any given expert can only know what one of those parts does. So nobody understands how the whole works. But let's go back a little bit to the design movements of yesterday's year. Let's go back to other flaws in modernism and his declaration on ornamental crime or to the Russian constructivists that thought all art was political and that building a USSR was a great art project. To the both of modernists that thought that art should adapt to the new era of the machine, but that there is an emotionally durable design that aims to save the environment by designing things that we will love more as time passes. All those guys and many, many more in the history of the art and design thought that they could change the world with their creations. They thought they could make their lives of people better, some by promoting social status, other by diminishing it, some by promoting technology and others by promoting mass consumption. But today's design trends try to promote an easier life but fail, actually promoting blissful ignorance. Do you know what the biggest search term by volume is on Google? Facebook. Why? Because people can't distinguish a search term from URL. And number three is Google. I think this is our fault and we have to fix it. It has huge security implications and it's clearly a failure of our design. We are trapped in our bubble and we've lost track of the real results of our work. We think that anyone knows basic things about technology because we do, but the reality is that many don't. And since we managed to get rid of manuals through intuitive design, now it's our job to teach them. There are many more examples of how current design fails, but I think the most spectacular manifestation is Facebook's fake news problem. They try to reduce the unlimited complexity of a thing called news to the presence or not of this. A small red flag. Of course they managed to do the opposite of what they intended. It's deeply inclined in Silicon Valley mentality. Simplify anything down to a single click. And that brings me to why it fails. It fails because our world is complex. Complexity is there and it is inevitable. The universe is complex. Our solutions to the problems caused by complexity usually involve even more complexity. In our effort to simplify things as designers, we end up just hiding complexity behind user interfaces that make assumptions. By driving over the complexity with a road paving roller machine of a UI, we destroy all kinds of nuances people love to love. Just visit any kind of community that loves a certain something. Audio equipment, cars, whiskey, gaming keyboards, jeans, desktop environments, whatever. And you will find that the discussion always gets down to the slight nuances that make each one's favorite thing unique to the point sometimes of absurdity. So let's go to typesetting. It's an example of the results of UI over simplification. LATECH might be intimidating, but it requires you to invest the time to learn everything about typesetting before you produce a very nice document. Word processors promise to make this easy, but in reality they never allow the masses to produce work comparable to that of professional typesetters. Why is that? Because typesetting is hard work. You have to know all about kerning and hinting and widows and orphans in positive and negative space and no amount of buttons and nice interface elements is going to make that easier. It just provides the false sense of competence. All the CVs I receive say excellent use of Microsoft Word in the same paragraph in which they use spaces to write a line of sentence. We make the effort to build a million different options in our software and then we go and hide them behind this. This essentially says, hey, I assume you're too stupid to change the settings, please don't. This doesn't mean that your app should have a 500 top settings dialog, but why hiding about config or Android developer settings so hard? And then there are the options that aren't even there. On one hand we try to promote open source software as something that provides freedoms and then we turn around and take those freedoms away by hiding them behind compiler flags as we know that our users don't know how to recompile our software. If this isn't too fast, I don't know what is. So I think it's our duty as open source design to have a political agenda, to actually do try and change the world, to be something more than automated operators of A.B. studies and usability testing, to care not only whether our user will do the task quickly and effortlessly, not only if she's going to engage more with our item, but also if she will leave the interaction happier, wiser and why not, a better person. It's not a coincidence that Deep and Upton found that the computer skills of undergraduates were between 1996 and 2006. It's the period of Steve Jobs' return to Apple and the dominance of just works. The same period saw an almost religious purge of anything that resembled the command line or programming for consumer computers. They come without any hint of programmability. They are from their primary purpose. To be fair, this gives birth to excellent visual computer interactions and help computers reach millions of people. I have nothing against that, but we took it too far. So what do I propose? To force everybody to code in assembler like real men? No, of course not. Technology must be accessible to everyone. It must have an easy on-ramp and not be intimidating. Is this possible? You talked about type setting a few minutes ago. On one end, on one hand you have a latex, which is steep and intimidating. On the other hand, you have Microsoft Word, which just promotes ignorance. I'm sorry, I have to take a sip. Is there a middle ground? I think stuck at it, the markdown is a very good example of a middle ground. It doesn't look a hieroglyphics to an untrained eye. It is easy to learn and a single row of buttons allows you to do most of the things you'd want to do in a document, while at the same time you see exactly what the computer sees. There are a few presses of the B button on a markdown editor. If you're slightly interested, you'll understand that it all does is around the word you are typing with double asterisks. And you'll be able to do it saving yourself a trip to the toolbar. AutoCAD is another nice example, though close source. It says point this click as MS Paint, but there's a nice little command line on the bottom that repeats every command you do even if you click on it with a mouse. You start learning what their commands are and you can time them yourself. There's also a nice predictable shortcut scheme that helps you work with shortcuts without having to go to the manual. So, let's break it down to some simple rules. One, teach. You know those troubleshooters that never work? Why not instead of trying to fix the problem you present your user with the steps he would take in order to understand why his printer or his internet access doesn't work. Teach them the process of the elimination and why you are doing this. Explain to them what DNS is and why this is probably the problem when you can reach the IP address and not to google.com. Two, ask politely to show more information. I'm pretty sure that there are millions of people that are curious of what happens between pressing their keyboard in the URL bar and seeing the web page they intend to see. So ask them politely. Did you ever wonder what happens behind the scenes when you type here? Not only you get to show all the fancy things you do on every keystroke, but also explains why you ask if you want to enable certain suggestions and why the answer shouldn't be. Of course, why do you even ask? By the way, I've seen people pasting passwords on the URL bar to see if they are correct. Three, use the jargon. Stop replacing intimidating jargon with softer words. It's confusing to those who know. It's different in every brand and makes for an awful, awkward situation when you are trying to give or get help. These are the words that Samsung and LG use instead of color subsampling. Don't be patronizing. This is not a good 404 page. I like the hip language, but what this page says is frankly bullshit. There are no paloompas in the computer searching for your mistype web page. Check the spelling or go to the WaveWag machine. And because design isn't all the way software, five, make repairs easy. Include a repair manual linked to disassembly videos. Don't use glue. Embrace wear and tear, stop cherishing smoothness and newness. Scratches and marks show use and utility. Use that in your design. Six, make it replaceable, interchangeable, so it's in the reworking. Reprap 3D printers are a very good example of what I'm talking about. You can see and learn exactly how they work. You can infinitely repair them and you can upgrade them with parts you can buy off the shelf. And then you can go and build your own. Contrast that to regular printers, which are almost always cheaper to replace than to repair. Sometimes it's cheaper to replace than buy new inks. And because we know nothing about them, they seem to never work. We have a certain focus on the tools nowadays and not the crafts. We have fixed it on the digital tools that allow us to do crafts and now people say that they know AutoCAD instead of architectural drafting. They say that they know Photoshop instead of graphic design or digital photo development. And this here is both the craft and the equivalent open source software, making them look inferior. If you know how to dig, the brand of the shovel shouldn't matter. So I think that what I described is what open source design should mean. But design is always controversial as it should be. And so in order to avoid hijacking the term, I would like to call this approach transparency. I invite you all to join me into creating examples of transparent design and put these ideas into even more concrete rules and approaches and influence the future of design. I have created a GitHub organization which is still empty, but I'd like to fill it with examples, rules and other things that would help future designers follow this approach. Thank you very much. And if you have any questions, why we should... We shouldn't do jokes about making jokes easier for users and you just say don't. I'm okay to learn but sometimes it's just too difficult because there's a large diversity of users, young, old people not computer engineers. So where do you place the level? I don't think it's about the level. That's why I said we don't need to make everybody code in assembler. Assembly is hard. We don't have to make things hard. We have to make them easy but in the process show the people what's happening behind the scenes. So when something goes wrong which it will go and we all know it, instead of just believing that we understand that it's the roller thing in the printer that it's fault and that we can go to the store and buy another and put it in there. To be able to do that it first means that the whole community requires the manufacturer to be like that. So there was a 3D printer manufacturer who started putting filament cartridges like the regular printer guys do and they didn't manage to keep that approach not even a year because everybody else uses interoperable filament and you can buy filament from everywhere and put it in your printer. So nobody could accept buying the proprietary thing. That's what I'd like to see. There's a line that makes users understand what's behind and then they want to learn and because they learn they are empowered to do things and not be controlled by whatever scheme is devised so that manufacturers for example can sell more printers. I don't know if I answered the question. There's a lot of preference in there if they are done wrong if the user changes them in the wrong way that they could change security or if users start relying on these preferences and somebody wants to remove them it's a lot of effort to kind of make that transition. So for users that just kind of see some guide and say oh I'm going to change the preference I can do this specific thing they don't want to kind of be whole why is this happening how would you manage that So the question in a few words was why I was against about config warning and what about the users that don't want to learn Actually that page was put there because I anticipated this kind of question and I wanted to talk a little bit about that I think that instead of having that page and then a bunch of options that are in JavaScript notation with dots there should be no warning and then every option should have two lines of text I'm sure that this is very short time needed compared to the time needed to implement an option in the code that explains what is it and why it should or it should not be clicked but it may be for some especially dangerous options there should be a warning near the specific option because in about config until recently it was the control tab switch between the latest tabs option and other options that were very dangerous and allow disabling encryption and everything else so bundling them all in the same basket and then telling the user ok go learn and then come back is much worse than describing what everything does and why he should or he should not click on it but if you go into describing every line you basically have to support every option and I guess the point behind this ok that's a valid point that is a valid use case and I understand that there might be a backlash if you go and remove something that people use and yeah that's something that maybe should be discussed more or maybe you're just right anything else or do I have more time I don't know ok I will do that yeah sorry it's a lot but it's just the credits for the except the all the others they're just the credits for the videos and the artwork I used but I will put them into petable