this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2024
49 points (98.0% liked)
Casual Conversation
2048 readers
140 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES (updated 01/22/25)
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
- Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
- Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
- Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities
- !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca
- !askmenover30@lemm.ee
- !dads@feddit.uk
- !letstalkaboutgames@feddit.uk
- !movies@lemm.ee
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My wife's car has a emergency brake PADEL (not pedal) on the dashboard that is connected on one end and you can push down on the other end or loop your finger under the padel and pull up (like a button version of a diving board). You push it to turn on the Emergency Brake, and once on, you pull it to turn it off. But what if it's off and you pull it? Nothing. If it's on and you push it? Nothing. This button takes 2 inputs but depending on its current state only 1 input will do anything. It's bad UI/UX in the real world.
Here's a stock photo of the kind of button but in a different car than my wife's.
Of course you are welcome to be annoyed by whatever you want but I think I kind of agree with this design... Regardless of what state the car is in, you always know that if you push that button, the car should now be in park. If you're a dum dum like most of us, and you forget whether you've done it already or not, you don't need to check the dash or anything to decide whether to push it or not, you can just do it. It's like saving twice in a Pokemon game. I like that it's two distinct gestures, but compressed down into one mechanism.
However, I'm not sure I like that it's push to engage and pull to disengage. In my car I'm pretty sure it's pull to engage and push to disengage, which reminds me of the old lever style of parking brake.
Truth is, I made up which way was which because nothing about this push-pull paddle expresses which direction is which action and I can never remember. Every time I interact with it is a guess. Do it one way, if I was wrong then do it the other. I'm onboard with idempotency but I feel this trades clarity for it.
I think that's actually good UX from a safety standpoint. It means the button is "idempotent": doing an operation the first time puts it in a state, and then doing it again leaves it still in that state.
If you're in a moment of panic and want the brake on, you might push the button a bunch of times in quick succession to "be sure." If it were a regular button, this would rapidly toggle it on and off, which would leave it in an uncertain state after you pressed it so fast. This way it turns on and stays active until you are ready to turn it off, and then you do another idempotent operation to turn it off. I don't think all buttons should be like this, but I think it's a good design decision for a button used in an "emergency."