Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

This is the security - usability tradeoff and is as old as the hills.



Yeah, it's a tradeoff by nature. This applies to security in general, not just computers. Having to unlock the door to your house when your hands are full with shopping is annoying, but the alternative is leaving your house unlocked all the time and trusting nobody will walk in.

Depending on the context (location, is there usually someone home anyway, value of stuff within the house) you may or may not find the tradeoff makes sense and voluntarily opt for the worse 'UX'.


See also: Boeing 737 Max


As in security against stalling lead to a UX disaster that caused planes to dive into the ground?

I'd argue the moral of that story was to redesign the plane, instead of piling on hacks to save costs in the short run.


As I understand it, they tried to design a new plane that wouldn't require pilots to be re-trained on how to use it, if they'd already been trained on an older model. That's the UX I'm referring to.


Certainly a (bad) trade-off, but I wouldn't classify it as UX. It's more of a safety vs sales trade-off.


The fun thing is users mistakenly recognise the tradeoff as a sign of the security. If it was annoying it must be secure. Why would somebody waste my time for no purpose? See also placebo effect - of course I feel better, you gave me pills and I took them, duh, it's medicine.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: