I think there’s a place in the universe for The Eagles and punk. They are different experiences, neither of which is less or more than the other. As a TEDster, I can say that I’ve had great experiences as both kinds of events, but they are very different.

Which sounds like a bit of a wank to me. To be fair, they are making the pressos available as an online feed for the plebs who are not invited into the inner sanctum.

As much as I like the quality of the presentations, it’s that slight air of stilted exclusivity that I find off-putting about TED & especially its children (who are essentially basking in its reflected glory). And why I much prefer the BarCamp / Open Space tradition.

TED is The Eagles. BarCamps are punk rock.

Possibly operator error, but appropriate nonetheless.

Personally, I think it’s good business to not make people think when viewing your site or using your product. Get out of the way and let the information and the viewer and/or customer get what they need. When I make things for others I always try and push this viewpoint. I’m no guru and my end result never exactly meets my own expectations, but I think it’s a worthwhile goal to aim for.

That’s not to say everything has to be Neilsenesque picture of boring and ugly utility, but simple has its own beauty and charm

I think I may have strayed from your original point, trib, so please forgive my vague ramblings on the topic.

I agree that web developers should always keep things as easy to use as possible. But I also think that users should learn: but I know many are not provided with the opportunity to learn.

I worked on a large Help Desk for many years. A lot of our users requested basic training: right-click, where the Start Menu is, what a browser is, the address bar, etc.

Unfortunately our ICT department refused to even consider training for these people. Their justification? “People should know this basic stuff by now”.

I suspect it’s like that in a lot of other workplaces too. There’s an assumption that people should “know this basic stuff” by now, and many people write simply resort to writing down exactly what they need to do in a notebook and completing their work that way.

As you point out, how people behave on the web has little to do with how smart they are, and it’s our job to accommodate the range of user behaviour, even if it’s unexpected or doesn’t make sense to us.

One thing to bear in mind is that “people using the web” can be broken down into the intended audiences for specific web presences. If a web professional understands their client and the client’s target audience / user group / market, there’s nothing wrong with taking the likely level of web (and other) expertise into account when designing an experience intended for them. Just be aware that, the web being what it is, people other than your intended users are likely to see it as well – which may even be an opportunity if you handle it right.

I agree that web designers too often design websites that are terrific for web designers to use and very few other people. I think that’s partly an effect of the way we work – often physically very solitary but convinced of the breadth and depth of our perspective by our connections via the web itself.

Way too often websites are designed, built and launched with little or no user testing, nor any review of how people use it over time. Asking for a quick pre-launch peer review via Twitter or Facebook is not only not enough – it is likely to mislead you.

I still think that there is a ‘floor’ of stupidity that needs to be set. Maybe my expectations are just higher than the norm?

Under Creative Commons of course