They can still use them if they meet certain criteria, and show that they 'need' them. The overuse probably comes from the incentive - Google is incentivized to encourage the use of captcha because it is curating a data collection for ai training. I imagine some of the 'gaslighting' that people experience is when they are given images that don't yet have a confidence rating high enough. I wonder if answering incorrectly often enough would result in being asked fewer questions?
‘Need’ here means exhausted all other opportunities, and have built alternative accessible ways of accessing the same service. I’d certainly have expected a service to have investigated a self-hosted solution, and I doubt a reliance on 3rd party JS from a Google service would fly, regardless of the service, as it breaks a whole bunch of separate resilience guidelines.
The few times I couldn't avoid Recaptcha, I spent 5 minutes randomly clicking on image tiles. Sometimes I got through by this strategy. If it didn't work, I tried a less random approach.
If we do make it over that hurdle, and the many other imminent threats our civilization faces, nuclear fuel is the only means we have (with current technology) of sustaining interstellar travel. Other fuels are too bulky and solar won't work when we get a certain distance from our star. I mean, CO2 and the lies surrounding it are probably going to kill us, and if that doesn't, nuclear war will, and if we manage to muster the level of cooperation and honesty needed to survive these issues, we still face self replicating nanite disasters, murderous omniscient AI disasters, anything you can imagine could kill us before we manage to spread our society into the stars. But if we do want to perform any meaningful operations in deep space, nuclear fuel conservation will be of the utmost importance. Surviving the wealthy few who control these resources and want to use them will be far harder than any other task of cooperation we are faced with.
Most users don't want control - more things to think about takes energy and time. The users that do want control, however, are likely to be the users championing your product. Take a standard transmission in automobiles - the extra control it gives isn't necessary, and a large number of consumers prefer the automatic transmission. But the racecar drivers and car lovers are much more likely to want a standard. If you have intelligent, invested users, they'll want control options, and they'll usually tell you what they should be.
In Germany consumers certainly do not prefer automatic transmissions (I do and it puzzles me why most people don't). So there's at least some culture/history involved in these preferences. I'd assume "wanting control" is also a bit of a cultural issue.
In the end, I think/fear that on average lazyness wins every time.
The feeling of slamming into second as you come out of a corner in a little sports car. In an automatic, its just a pedal and the wheel, in a manual you physically engage the warp mode. It feels good, gives a greater sense of power in your actions and also contributes to enjoyable familiar muscle memory. Humans dig physical ritual.
Manual transmissions are the default in most of Europe. They're cheaper, they're more efficient and they make the most of small engines with limited torque.
>they make the most of small engines with limited torque.
Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner!
People like manuals because they can choose when to up-shift whereas the guys programming the automatic transmission will program it to up-shift as soon as they think they can get away with (for fuel economy and emissions). With a manual you can let your 1L hornets nest scream along at 4k all the time giving you close to peak power on tap whenever you want it. Basically manuals are a hack around regulations that force manufactures to build cars with performance characteristics nobody wants (under-powered engines and transmissions that up-shift at the drop of a hat). Those regulations are much stronger in Europe so the value proposition of a manual transmission is better there.
Most of the time I drive economically and up-shift very early. Sometimes I want to have some fun and fly out of corners at 4 or 5K on my small 1200cc car.
force manufactures to build cars with performance characteristics nobody wants
Well... performance characteristics that everybody wants -- for everybody else. They themselves want warp drive, but prefer everybody else help hold down the price of gasoline and the carbon content of the atmosphere.
automatic acceleration feels really neutered in every car i've come across, being in control feels better than waiting for the car to kick in automatically.
then again i ride bikes too and prefer a more active driving experience
On the flip side my government insists on giving me a choice of schools for my child. I don't really want choice, I want the local school to be good and for my children to go there.
In this view, users still don't want control, its just a symptom of the failure to provide what users do actually want.
Ah, exactly the issue that sprung to my mind too. The tyranny of "choice" as introduced into various UK governmental systems is so bloody annoying. Great, I can "choose" my kids school, armed with a spreadsheet and looking at various progress, attainment and wellbeing metrics, that never actually seem to capture how happy and fullfilled the kids are at school. I can "choose" my hopsital consultant using the choose-and-book system.
No. I want to send my kid to the local school that will be good and I want to go to the local hospital where I will be treated by a well qualified caring medical professional. I don't want to have to create pivot tables.
It also provides the strange incentive to optimize for glossy powerpoint presentation that communicates our core values to parents. Organizations which never had to have a marketing department finds themselves struggling without one.
> I want the local school to be good and for my children to go there
That's assuming there's a universal "good" - even if a school meets some general standards one school can have a better arts program, the other might be more biased towards sports, etc. I don't see anything wrong with having choice - having a good baseline everywhere is a separate issue.
Well lets go out on a limb and say all schools are good, and specialise in one subject. Which should I send my 5 or 11 year old to?
I mean they like football, but they also like drawing, but then neither of those are well known for paying the bills. So I still circle back making sure they get a balanced education.
The problem though is that choice is the supposed solution to not having good schools. That may be UK specific though.
The idea (although rather poorly implemented in the UK state system) is that choice leads to competition, and competition leads to improvement even of those at the bottom (and even for those who don’t really pay attention to the choice/don’t care). It’s a market philosophy of sorts.
I know that's the idea. The result is schools spending a non trivial amount of time jumping through hoops for the benefit of people who are ill equipped to evaluate those schools. On top of that the number of places are fairly static year to year so all schools end up getting filled anyway, but the 'better' schools are filled with the students that arguably least need the benefits, whereas the worst schools are filled with the children of the least able.
Yes. The 'market' mechanism for popular schools to find money and permission to expand while less popular ones are closed or taken over is missing and subject to too much political interference. So it arguably ends up as the worst of both worlds.
>On the flip side my government insists on giving me a choice of schools for my child. I don't really want choice, I want the local school to be good and for my children to go there.
Yeah, people mostly start asking for control when you make the default experience shitty. They want control to escape the hell they've been put in, but they have to pay a price for it either in money or time. So functionally, "give users more control" is really saying "make the user pay more to use my product."
In an ideal world everything would be bespoke and custom tailored for me, but the idea there is that the tailor knows how to create what I want. Not that I have to go tailoring all my own stuff. I'm not competent enough to do that unless it's my hobby.
Automatic transmission cars are very unpopular across Europe. In all seriousness, I don't know if I've ever even seen an automatic in real life, except for travelling to the US.
That is a separate issue from control - one of defaults. You can have a simple default that works or a complex one with defined behavior which have usability issues.
Customization gives control to those who want to take it.
