Her Code Got Humans on the Moon
I found a lot in this article particularly interesting and inspiring. One aspect of Margaret Hamilton was all of the challenges that she had to overcome to be where she ended up. Beyond being an incredible scientist, she had to be comfortable being the only woman in many of the spaces she occupied. In this regard, she was a definite trailblazer.
One line that stood out to me, however, was “I was one of the guys.” From what I’ve experienced (and my colleagues), STEM is a highly male-dominated field, and often caters to a very specific “guy culture.” It can be ostracizing for those who may not fit into the “guy culture,” dynamic.
All of that to say–I am remarkably inspired by Margaret Hamilton’s story–but I fear how many scientists we must have lost out on because they didn’t have a personality that fit into “guy culture.” I love the story of Margaret Hamilton, but wonder if she would have been held back if her personality was less compatible to the cultural expectation? To be explicit, this is in no way a critique of Margaret Hamilton–she is surely entitled to her own personality and cultural preferences. I am instead calling out the “one of the guys,” culture that many men likely imposed then and still impose now. Why don’t we be a bit more accepting of whatever culture bright scientists bring to the table–regardless of how it may or may not conform to existing expectations?
Attractive Design
Designing systems that feel intuitive is surely a skill, which does not necessarily come naturally to many of us. However, I can definitely agree with the article, in that tools that feel nice to use genuinely just make me feel better. The value of a pleasant looking UI and sensible inputs cannot be understated. This, in my opinion, is one of the essential reasons that Apple has such a prolific market share: They understand how to engineer products that users will enjoy using.
Reading this article made me remember a talk given by Prof. Scott Shenker, where he mentioned about how engineers typically find joy in mastering complexity. However, systems that require mastering complexity is often diametrically opposed to intuitive user design. In other words, while engineers may find joy in learning to understand complex systems so that they can interact with them effectively, the average user does not want or need to understand this complexity in order to interact with something in a simple way.
We may also introduce additional nuance, however, considering how there’s often a balance between tools for experts and tools for non-experts. Microsoft Excel may be a nice example, where non-experts can generally make a basic table with almost no guidance or prior knowledge of working with the software. However, put an accountant down in the same seat and watch them setup the most complex formulas and use every keyboard shortcut you didn’t know existed. This exemplifies a system that is generally usable to anyone, but is increasingly useful to those who truly know it.
The program that made me consider this paradigm was actually the Vim text-editor, which is infamous for being unusable to new users. However, once you learn the in and outs of it, I can confirm that it’s almost impossible to start using any other text-editor. The keyboard shortcuts are just too useful, and too enjoyable, to go back to anything else–despite the incredibly unintuitive design.
Another example of this is the Rust programming language, which also has an incredibly steep learning curve. To be honest, I had to take Computer Systems Organization before Rust really clicked in my brain. Yet, despite the high barrier to entry, Rust consistently is ranked as a developer favorite–above Python and JavaScritpt. Rust genuinely feels fun to program–even when you’re struggling through the basics. To me, these two examples come down to ergonomics. Despite their high complexity and profound lack of intuitive design, the thoughtful ergonomics more than compensate–providing an overall unique experience.