> If you find it hilarious it's because you don't understand the reason.
I think it's hilarious that you think users are supposed to understand "the reason" at this level of detail.
When we make a thing, we make choices about who it's for. Sometimes those choices are explicit. But this is a good example of an implicit choice. Clearly it grew into this shape for reasons, but those reasons are about the people doing the making, not the people using it.
Even if we grant that all of this hierarchy is necessary, it still imposes a large burden on the person trying to figure out "why is X doing Y?" And that might be fine if the makers said, "Well this is going to be hard, so what can we do to make it easy?"
But denying that users will reasonably find this hilarious (or frustrating or impossible) is just digging the hole deeper. Telling people that their understandable reactions are wrong doesn't change their reactions, it just gets them to stop mentioning the problems around you.
I think it's hilarious that you think users are supposed to understand "the reason" at this level of detail.
When we make a thing, we make choices about who it's for. Sometimes those choices are explicit. But this is a good example of an implicit choice. Clearly it grew into this shape for reasons, but those reasons are about the people doing the making, not the people using it.
Even if we grant that all of this hierarchy is necessary, it still imposes a large burden on the person trying to figure out "why is X doing Y?" And that might be fine if the makers said, "Well this is going to be hard, so what can we do to make it easy?"
But denying that users will reasonably find this hilarious (or frustrating or impossible) is just digging the hole deeper. Telling people that their understandable reactions are wrong doesn't change their reactions, it just gets them to stop mentioning the problems around you.