Products like a joystick possess strong "affordance"—their design inherently communicates how they should be used. This intuitive quality, where a user can just "grok" it, is a key principle of effective design often missing in modern interfaces like touchscreens, which require learned behavior.

Related Insights

Reducing the number of clicks is a misguided metric. A process with eight trivially easy clicks is better than one with two fraught, confusing decisions. Each decision burns cognitive energy and risks making the user feel stupid. The ultimate design goal should be to prevent users from having to think.

Referencing Christopher Alexander, the discussion highlights "unself-conscious" design, where creators build and adapt a product while using it. This direct feedback loop creates a more functional and soulful product than one designed by specialized "architects" who are disconnected from the end-user's experience.

The obsession with removing friction is often wrong. When users have low intent or understanding, the goal isn't to speed them up but to build their comprehension of your product's value. If software asks you to make a decision you don't understand, it makes you feel stupid, which is the ultimate failure.

Common frustrations, like chronically forgetting which stove knob controls which burner, are not personal failings. They are examples of poor design that lacks intuitive mapping. Users often internalize these issues as their own fault when the system itself is poorly designed.

The "Owner's Delusion" is the inability to see your own product from the perspective of a new user who lacks context. You forget they are busy, distracted, and have minimal intent. This leads to confusing UIs. The antidote is to consciously step back, "pretend you're a regular human being," and see if it still makes sense.

The Wright brothers' first plane required a 'full-body activity' to fly, with hip movements controlling wing tilt and a lever for pitch—a system compared to 'patting your head and rubbing your stomach.' The invention of the single joystick radically simplified this complex, non-intuitive interface, consolidating multi-axis control into one hand.

The ultimate goal of interface design, exemplified by the joystick, is for the tool to 'disappear.' The user shouldn't think about the controller, but only their intention. This concept, known as 'affordance,' creates a seamless connection between thought and action, making the machine feel like an extension of the self.

For highly commoditized interactions like text editor undo or canvas pinch-to-zoom, users have powerful, ingrained expectations. Failing to match these conventions doesn't make a tool feel "different"; it makes it feel fundamentally unusable and broken, regardless of its other features. Innovation should be focused elsewhere.

The dual-stick controller design has been functionally stable for nearly three decades, suggesting it is a 'peak interface' for 3D navigation. This reliability and widespread familiarity are precisely what allowed for its adoption in high-stakes fields like remote surgery and military operations, as the interface itself was a solved problem.

A joystick has 'perceived affordance'—its physical form communicates how to use it. In contrast, a touchscreen is a 'flat piece of glass' with zero inherent usability. Its function is entirely defined by software, making it versatile but less intuitive and physically disconnected compared to tactile hardware controls.

Great Product Design Exhibits 'Grok-able Affordance,' Making Function Obvious | RiffOn