Revive Raskin's 3 laws of software with humane work that considers a dev's duty of care

They haven’t been bettered yet. There are rules, and even laws, about designing computer user interfaces. Even after 35 years of Linux, which has brought Unix to the masses, the FOSS world has not yet really grasped this. In the meantime, the proprietary software world is busily forgetting everything it once knew. Sometimes these rules surface today, and the FOSS folks often get very cross when reminded that they’re user-interface scofflaws. Marcin Wichary’s recent blog post, They had no concept of a duty of care to their users, is an excellent recent example. (The Reg FOSS desk much admires Mr Wichary’s writing, to the extent that we bought his history of the keyboard, Shift Happens.) In his latest post, Wichary refers to CHERI Project boffin David Chisnall. Chisnall is a long-term Vim user – we all have our failings – and recently recounted trying NeoVim. He uses Vim’s persistent-undo feature, which records changes in a separate directory, so that you can repeatedly undo until you get back to changes you made weeks or months earlier. He’s customized where it’s kept, and when he tried the NeoVim fork, it overwrote his Vim undo file. In a later update to his post, he acknowledges that there was a warning, but he expected it to be safe. It overwrote records of more than a decade’s worth of changes. As he puts it: “Vim has kept this working across major version upgrades over a period of about 20 years. I don’t even think about it, it’s just part of Raskin’s First Law: A program may not harm a user’s data or, through inaction, allow a user’s data to come to harm. If vim or the computer crash, or if I close a file and come back to it six months later, my undo history is still there.” Wichary expands Chisnall’s citation of Raskin’s first law , but just in case you’re not a follower of “Golden Age” science fiction, a little context. Asimov introduced his three laws in a short story called “Runaround”, in Astounding Science Fiction magazine* in May 1942. (The story was later collected in the anthology I, Robot – which is nothing like the terrible 2004 film.) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey the orders given it .