A Feminine Computer?
haxel.ca
haxel.ca
The result was the Neon (Dodge Neon / Plymouth Neon ... either way, it was the same car) and by most accounts was an absolute success at achieving that goal. It may sound silly or sexist, but it worked, and the car was very popular (and made Dodge a lot of money).
The fact that it wouldn't appeal to men was not a problem for Dodge. Guy Kawasaki has often advised, "don't be afraid to polarize," which means if you offer a product that has a very strong flavor then yes some people won't like it, but the people who do like it will like it so much the product will be quite successful.
It seems to me that modern computers are already severely polarized and it's limiting our views of what they can do for us.
At the same time, I don't agree with it, personally. For example, whenever I do sysadmin work, or watch other sysadmins, there is very much this sort of nurturing relationship--"What did you do? Where does it hurt? Have you tried this? Can you show me what your settings were? Poor computer. :("
Perhaps this is no longer true in the new cloud days of servers as livestock-not-pets where you summarily destroy a misbehaving instance, but there was a time where we'd treat sick instances like sick children.
In fact, one of the things I very much disagree with is this whole notion of how difficult computers are to work with--command-line based ones especially. In classes or meetups, whenever I'd work with people new to the shell I always make sure to point out that we're about to have a conversation with the computer: we're going to ask it how it's feeling (`top`, `tail /var/log/messages"), what it's doing right now (`ps -A`), who it's been talking to (`netstat -plant`), who else it's working with (`users`), and if it knows anything interesting today (`fortune`).
What doesn't help is treating it like some black box that needs to be dumbed down or referring to it as something which requires a special skill set to use, which is a common theme in this article. Another thing I disliked about this article is that while it handwaves a bunch about how masculine computers are and how feminine it could be, it never really describes what such an approach looks like nor why it would be attractive.
In fact, I rather resent the implication that femininity is defined as this sort of spaced-out, overly-intimate, scatter-brained, disorganized sort of thing. Contrast author's work, for example, with a mother running herd over several kids and keeping things on time, or a young woman making an evening date with a friend after dressing up and working on her appearance.
Overall, in my view, the feminine represents the creative process - the ability to discover and establish new directions. It's the way to achieve any kind of change. Is there anything more valuable?
The idea though is that by making the beginning of a computing experience more closely align with where we actually are as individuals, the ramp-up is much less steep than it is now. I say it's steep because of my observations of people who are not long-time techies - just regular folk who are afraid of computers and abhor detail. People taking classes and using command lines are already well along their journey.
This is a good example of the sort of language that I think doesn't help us.
"Regular folk" somehow implies that it's normal and acceptable not to know how to use computers--it's not. In fact, it's no more acceptable nowadays to be ignorant of how to use a computer than it is to be ignorant of how to use a book or how to use a phone or how to use a lighter.
"abhor detail" is a defect, not a common trait. Mankind is defined by our use of tools and our ability to pay attention to details as well as the abstract.
I think the sooner we stop using language that lets people excuse themselves from being functioning members of a technological society the better we'll be as a civilization.
You seem to be saying there's only one way for technology to be - the way it already is - and that everyone had better get on board with it, or else.
I'm saying there's also another way for computers to be that lets everyone receive more value with less effort and, if they choose to take it that far, ease into the way technology is now. But they may not ever need to. This would accomplish the same goal you are espousing, but in a practical way rather than by decree.
I'm taking the beginning and moving it way back, to the point where an Uzbek villager seeing such a computer for the first time can use it as well as an expert within a day or two, because it operates on principles he's already familiar with and doesn't require classroom instruction.
As a SysAdmin, you have the keys to the kingdom, the world of technology is at your fingertips. You're in a position of power in a technological world. As a long-time software guy, the same is true for me. Yet our expertise only puts us on thick side of a power-law distribution; a fine place to be, but the vast majority of people have nowhere near our expertise and simply do not possess the comfort-level and skills to extract the value we do. Whether it is to pull down a nice salary or to change the world with software, at this point in time we are a minority.