←back to thread

Chat is a bad UI pattern for development tools

(danieldelaney.net)
858 points cryptophreak | 1 comments | 04 Feb 25 16:06 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
taeric ◴[04 Feb 25 16:47 UTC] No.42934898[source]▶
I'm growing to the idea that chat is a bad UI pattern, period. It is a great record of correspondence, I think. But it is a terrible UI for doing anything.

In large, I assert this is because the best way to do something is to do that thing. There can be correspondence around the thing, but the artifacts that you are building are separate things.

You could probably take this further and say that narrative is a terrible way to build things. It can be a great way to communicate them, but being a separate entity, it is not necessarily good at making any artifacts.

replies(17): >>42934997 #>>42935058 #>>42935095 #>>42935264 #>>42935288 #>>42935321 #>>42935532 #>>42935611 #>>42935699 #>>42935732 #>>42935789 #>>42935876 #>>42935938 #>>42936034 #>>42936062 #>>42936284 #>>42939864 #
1. zamfi ◴[04 Feb 25 17:47 UTC] No.42935938[source]▶
With apologies to Bill Buxton: "Every interface is best at something and worst at something else."

Chat is a great UI pattern for ephemeral conversation. It's why we get on the phone or on DM to talk with people while collaborating on documents, and don't just sit there making isolated edits to some Google Doc.

It's great because it can go all over the place and the humans get to decide which part of that conversation is meaningful and which isn't, and then put that in the document.

It's also obviously not enough: you still need documents!

But this isn't an "either-or" case. It's a "both" case.