Not the 90s?
Oh, yeah, those were the days? No, the 1990s weren’t better. We devs weren’t better, the users weren’t better, and, hell, payment wasn’t better. In fact, one of the pains in the late 90s was to overcome all those things that “just weren’t good enough”. Funny, that’s why it was a good thing. Because, users – the people that created products that paid their and our salaries, were glad and grateful…
Ah, the nostalgia of the 1990s. No, the 90s weren't necessarily better, were they? Back then, developers, users, and even payment weren't all that great. The main challenge back then was to overcome the shortcomings of the tools and systems we had. Users, who paid the salaries of developers and us, appreciated any help that improved their experience with the tools at hand.
New tools were introduced by "higher ups" with the assumption that implementing them would increase productivity. But, it didn't matter if that assumption was based on reality or not, because expensive tools were assumed to be good. As developers, we had to learn how to "hack" the latest tools. We were judged by whether we could find a workaround to make the tools work.
It is easy to feel that the 90s were better than today's "shinier" tools that arrive daily instead of monthly. Well, we are older now. Back in the day, we could run up six floors without panting, looked better (or at least not decayed), and we were wizards who understood even the latest tools. We could hack our way to solutions.
And, interestingly, pizza was better back then too. Looking back, what feels like "better" often has more to do with forgetting what was not good than remembering it all accurately. My experience spans various industries, including publishing houses, agencies, film/photo/audio studios, and software houses. Many companies with in-house development had their departments structured with user-facing developers who understood the users' workflows.
They would sit with users to learn their processes and focus on identifying awkwardness and user frustration. They would then discuss with other developers to ensure everyone understood how a button should work. We would then meet with users, without higher-ups, to create a workflow directly on a blank projected page. We would discuss live with users, add click-actions, and have a working click-through workflow within a few hours.
No lengthy "let me prompt" sessions were needed, as we could often improve the situation by commenting out unnecessary user prompts. Comparing the past and present, the difference lies in the way we approach user interactions. In the past, we would create and iterate on workflows with users, understanding their needs and finding practical solutions.
Today, it feels like prompting is a self-satisfying act, often leading to suboptimal solutions. While AI can be a helpful tool, it should not be relied upon to replace the understanding of users' needs and the ability to create practical solutions. Ultimately, a job well done is one that makes users happy, ensuring productivity and satisfaction.
Written by urgent.news from Dev.to's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
