The Wordsmith's Forge

>> I think it's not so much it being hard to describe as it being hard to do. Certainly there are places it's talked about now in the schools that these geeks are graduating from, but implementing the ideals is another thing entirely.<<

I agree that it is challenging to do. However, there are a bunches of human-standard things that have already been documented because other sciences are just curious about that stuff. Surely one could make a manual of those things that are useful in computer programming, like "Red means stop/bad. Green means go/good." That would be a starting point. A list of principles would also be helpful.

It took me a while of searching through articles on this topic to find anything with a good definition or list of traits. Most of them said "intuitive is hard to define" or "intuitive is meaningless." 0_o

>> In my experience, some of it's a matter of assuming that because it makes sense to *you* it will make sense to everyone else, <<

This can be fixed with diverse planning teams, who will see from different perspectives. If you have a black guy, a white girl, an autistic person, and a wheelchair user making a program together, they will each think of different things and you're more likely to get a program usable by many people.

>> some of it's a matter of laziness, <<

Fixable with a boot to the rear, or a pink slip.

>> and some of it's a matter of conflicting needs. <<

Requires different programs, or else one program that can adapt to different users via modules, settings, etc. For example, a good blog system will offer many different ways to configure a blog, but it all uses the same underlying code.

>> Which is why I liked your text/image heavy page switch so much. I can't process most image heavy pages well because I interpret images differently than most people (emojis confuse the hell out of me).<<

I'm glad it appealed to you. Many people don't like or can't use images. A site that relies on pictures is hell on a text reader.

>> I wish that was a thing I could use irl.<<

You can always keep it in mind for coding, whether your own or someone else's. I can't code, but I can describe cool things and maybe somegeek will use them.

>>And The Design of Everyday Things was an early resource on inclusive design as well as intuitive design, so if you get a chance to read it you might find it worthwhile.<<

That's a thought. And I greatly prefer "inclusive design" to "universal design" because the latter is impossible.