> But to many people - I dare say a majority - that's not how they use technology. They want right answers. Correct opinions. Curated lists. Approved facts. Selected content channels... And our industry has shaped itself to "deliver" that, in cheap convenient forms.
Tough luck. Scientists and those who want to go off-road still need tools for their thought. I'm happy to let the majority hold onto their 'curated exprience', but we need to have our needs met too.
You will, if you can pay for them. Unfortunately, the number of entertainment or corporate IT dollars available is way way more than the number of research grant dollars, so your tools will probably be worse since less can be spent creating and maintaining them.
Alternatively, researchers can try to use the same digital tools that entertainment consumers or corporate knowledge workers use. They might be less suited, but can potentially make up for it with extra polish.
Another interesting wrinkle in this whole conversation is that research tools that are useful for normal people tend to eagerly escape the lab. This happened with (off the top of my head only): SQL/RDBMS, the Internet, Email, garbage collected languages, object-orientation/actor model, research UNIX, and the WWW. The list is endless.
When this happens, the researchers (who were the initial user base) basically lose control of the technology. This process can benefit the researchers or not, but is basically indifferent to their needs.
Tough luck. Scientists and those who want to go off-road still need tools for their thought. I'm happy to let the majority hold onto their 'curated exprience', but we need to have our needs met too.