> Programmer's can design interfaces, specailized to a problem, that may give the end user some flexibility in that problem.
Yes, that's what I'm talking about.
For example, moving all photos within a certain date range into a different folder could be done using a quick shell script. Only a programmer could do that, right? But then if you give an ordinary user a file manager where they can switch to a tabular view, click on the Date column to sort the files and then do a range selection, they can suddenly do it, without any programming ability.
There is a spectrum of kinds of tools, from a single button that says "Do it", to a simple form where you fill in some details and then click "Do it", to a toolbox where you can perform various actions in sequence, combining them freely to get to your goal (the file manager example), to a general-purpose programming language.
Along this spectrum, the increasing number of options makes the tool more powerful, but it also becomes more difficult to use, because the user has to make more decisions to arrive at their goal. Making the right decisions requires having a mental model of the effect these decisions have, and in the case of programming languages, this mental model is essentially equivalent to "programming skill".
However, not all problems that currently require a programmer to solve are really so hard, and it might be possible for an expert user with the right toolbox to do it just as well.
> However I fear that this perspective of yours is the same one which recurs at a certain level of mastery over a particular skill: to now no longer be consciously aware of all the things you need to know, and therefore to assume your highly adapted and sophisticated behaviour is not something that this been trained into you;
While I am not usually consciously aware of everything I know, I am aware that it required training to get where I am and that not everyone has this training or will ever have it.
For example, I know that there are people, generally quite adept at using computers, who would be unable to complete the file manager example I gave above; either because they don't know how to do one of the steps, or else because they could not mentally connect them to get from what they have to what they want.
However, I am fairly sure that there are more people who could do that than those who could write a program to achieve the same effect; that is what counts in my book. If you can move a problem from requiring an expert tool maker to only requiring an expert tool user, you should do it.
Regarding your plumber example: there is an "end-user plumbing system" that allows you to get running water and regulate its temperature by turning the right knobs, and everyone can learn to use it, no plumbing experience required.
Sometimes, not always, but sometimes, programming is like that.
Yes, that's what I'm talking about.
For example, moving all photos within a certain date range into a different folder could be done using a quick shell script. Only a programmer could do that, right? But then if you give an ordinary user a file manager where they can switch to a tabular view, click on the Date column to sort the files and then do a range selection, they can suddenly do it, without any programming ability.
There is a spectrum of kinds of tools, from a single button that says "Do it", to a simple form where you fill in some details and then click "Do it", to a toolbox where you can perform various actions in sequence, combining them freely to get to your goal (the file manager example), to a general-purpose programming language.
Along this spectrum, the increasing number of options makes the tool more powerful, but it also becomes more difficult to use, because the user has to make more decisions to arrive at their goal. Making the right decisions requires having a mental model of the effect these decisions have, and in the case of programming languages, this mental model is essentially equivalent to "programming skill".
However, not all problems that currently require a programmer to solve are really so hard, and it might be possible for an expert user with the right toolbox to do it just as well.
> However I fear that this perspective of yours is the same one which recurs at a certain level of mastery over a particular skill: to now no longer be consciously aware of all the things you need to know, and therefore to assume your highly adapted and sophisticated behaviour is not something that this been trained into you;
While I am not usually consciously aware of everything I know, I am aware that it required training to get where I am and that not everyone has this training or will ever have it.
For example, I know that there are people, generally quite adept at using computers, who would be unable to complete the file manager example I gave above; either because they don't know how to do one of the steps, or else because they could not mentally connect them to get from what they have to what they want.
However, I am fairly sure that there are more people who could do that than those who could write a program to achieve the same effect; that is what counts in my book. If you can move a problem from requiring an expert tool maker to only requiring an expert tool user, you should do it.
Regarding your plumber example: there is an "end-user plumbing system" that allows you to get running water and regulate its temperature by turning the right knobs, and everyone can learn to use it, no plumbing experience required.
Sometimes, not always, but sometimes, programming is like that.