[OT] "The Condescending UI" (was: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?)

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Nick Sabalausky" <a at a.a> wrote in message 
news:jfnf2r$913$1 at digitalmars.com...
> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:op.v8l0jzrdeav7ka at localhost.localdomain...
>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:59:46 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:
>>
>> This has nothing to do with it.  They could have come up with a *million* 
>> better choices.
>>
>> Couple that with the fact that:
>>
>> a) you usually want something on or off.  If it's already in the desired 
>> state, you can usually tell without looking at the switch.
>> b) It's far more mentally taxing to read/understand the symbols, remember 
>> how they apply to circuits, then determine whether it's on or off, than 
>> it is to simply start flipping switches until you get the desired result.
>>
>
> So symbols are bad because they chose the wrong symbol?
>

I put "So symbols are bad because they chose the wrong symbol?" after the 
wrong quote. I meant it in response to "This has nothing to do with it. 
They could have come up with a *million* better choices."