SorryNotSorry Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 A few months ago, I bought an inexpensive pair of Bluetooth headphones. You charge them up, open the Bluetooth menu on your phone, then press and hold the sync button on the headphones until the icon shows up on your phone, and it's ready to work. Same thing with a lot of other wireless devices. A couple of weeks ago, I bought a set of 4 internet-viewable surveillance cameras which work through a wifi router. The wifi software people didn't get the memo. The instructions that come with the camera have a page with a QR code you're supposed to use once you download the app and power the camera up (you hold the QR code still and let the camera read it), but this didn't work. Turns out you have to take steps that are totally not in the instruction booklet at all. Every time I want to add another camera to the app, I need to have my computer geek buddy do it for me. He claims it's easy, but his definition of "easy" seems to be "requires 20 steps, AND you need to have ESP to sense what the device is doing". Even getting Windows to do one simple thing is not this complicated. I just don't understand what prevents someone from inventing a one-touch wifi sync button and incorporating it into devices like this. I wrote a very mixed review of this camera pack in which I described exactly what I think it needs in the way of software revision. Link to post Share on other sites
Pramana Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 I would probably be frustrated in that situation, as I like technology to just work intuitively. Possibly get Apple to build it according to their "automatic integration, zero digital skills required to operate" design philosophy. Link to post Share on other sites
SorryNotSorry Posted March 11, 2018 Author Share Posted March 11, 2018 13 hours ago, Pramana said: I would probably be frustrated in that situation, as I like technology to just work intuitively. Possibly get Apple to build it according to their "automatic integration, zero digital skills required to operate" design philosophy. Believe me, if wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets. Link to post Share on other sites
Euna Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 Sorry to hear it was a bad experience...I work in software, and these things get to me. I feel like a lot of products have poor UX, simply because the focus is on getting the product out there, without sufficient testing and research to determine if it's user friendly. Technology shouldn't be that hard, not with the capabilities we have now. Link to post Share on other sites
SorryNotSorry Posted March 16, 2018 Author Share Posted March 16, 2018 Tell most computer geeks that something's difficult, time-consuming, or impossible for you to operate, and they'll insist that you have the IQ of a fencepost because you can't read the device's mind. The problem is that such people don't intuit things in the same way the rest of us do. They don't understand the idea of plug-and-play: they don't understand the concept of convenience. Link to post Share on other sites
gisiebob Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 well, with wireless connections they can be quite complicated, but because you don't see the complexity, it looks like they just talk to each other (or are supposed to but don't!). but think about all the ways we troubleshoot talking to each other, in cases like being distant or in crowded rooms and that computers can't do that. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.