That implies we're discussing situations where there is no consistency; IME, there is usually consistency but the individual is not _looking for consistency_, so they fail to see it.
> The reason specialists understand computer usage is because they understand how computers function at a low level,
In most situations, specialists look for consistency among unrelated tools, so an unknown tool or an unknown error prompts the individual to go to a known position to understand the unknown parts, e.g. clicking the "Help" menu or appending "--help" to a command, or looking for a log file or a configuration file, etc.
> The physical existence of a car gives a lot of indications of the function of a car.
Which function? Ignition? Acceleration? Gear shifting? Braking? Charging the battery? Refueling?
Sure, folks know that a car is used to travel from place to place, but you're flattening a lot into that -- most folks have near zero idea on maintenance, repair or troubleshooting, even though their car likely has a manual in the glove box and the internet is always on their phone.
> People deal with computers through arbitrary idiosyncratic curated interfaces that for business purposes often plot against their users.
Most functions of a car are hidden and the UI is inconsistent not just across manufacturers but across models and years.
Whatever we're discussing, there are folks with experience and specialized knowledge. There are also folks who lack that experience or specialized knowledge but do understand there is usually consistency across various systems and look for a known point to understand the unknown points.
There are also folks, most folks IME, who won't look for consistency, won't read a manual, won't try to learn what they're missing, and instead will throw their hands up and say "it won't work".
No comments yet.
