Jim Waldo talks about the classic Worse is Better in Worse is Worse.
Really what it comes down to is: if you think worse is better, then you don't know what the hell you're talking about. You don't understand "worse", or "better", or maybe you think "better" means popular, while "worse" means simpler (or does "worse" mean unpopular and "better" mean complex? Or does "better" mean pretty and "worse" mean disfunctional? Or does "better" mean reliable, and "worse" mean unprofitable?).. anyway, it's just a semantic mess.
Which isn't the original author's fault, he was just using a catchy title. It's good he did, because now we can refer to that entire line of thought with those three words. It's bad because some dumb people confuse truisms for truth. But those people are dumb, and can be discounted, so I don't know why I should worry about it anyway.
~spits~ Yep, them there kind'a peoples is dumb. But they have money, and want to spend it on us. I mean, the "solution".
I prefer the simple but elegant philosophy, which simplifies layout but complicates interaction, in layers. I guess that would be the "So-so is better". Or maybe "Fast but confusing". What are the rules for the 3 word catch phrase, anyways?# Puna Tannehill
Actually, with his later commentary (eg. the Acceptance Models paper), Gabriel seems to be aware that "worse" is really a combination of seemingly counter-intuitive disruptive factors, rather than supposedly sloppy UNIX-style programming attitudes.# Paul Boddie