It is a curious fact of our digital lives that, despite rapid technological progress and the ultra-sophisticated gadgets now in every pocket and office, one of the most basic aspects of user interaction—how we set up and personalize our devices—remains as disjointed, obscure, and inefficient as ever. For all our talk of “user-centric design,” it is still remarkably easy for even experienced users to find themselves wrestling with settings menus that are inconsistent between operating systems, unfriendly to accessibility, and treacherous to those with specific needs or impairments. This is not a problem rooted in hard technical limitations; rather, it is a product of historical inertia, corporate differentiation, and, ultimately, a lack of coordinated will among the leading powers of the tech world.
At the heart of the matter lies the observation that just ten people—those responsible for signing off on the design of settings menus and configuration standards at Apple, Google, Microsoft, Samsung, and Sony—have at their fingertips the power to make computing better for everyone, in perpetuity. Imagine a single, universal standard: one that would define which user-adjustable features are available on every device with a screen, where exactly those features reside in the settings menu, and how all those settings are stored in a common data structure. Implemented, it would not only save vast swathes of time for users worldwide but, more importantly, would make IT meaningfully better for all, permanently.
We have become so inured to the friction and confusion of device setup that we seldom question why features like adjusting text size, changing color themes, or selecting preferred input methods still require a scavenger hunt through nested menus. For the neurodivergent, visually impaired, or elderly, these settings can make the difference between autonomy and exclusion. Yet, even for the able-bodied and tech-savvy, the digital landscape is littered with accounts of frustration: new phones with unfamiliar menus, public terminals that cannot be easily personalized, and headaches migrating from one platform to another.
The vision is elegantly simple. Were all major platform vendors to agree on:
Electronic devices, too, converged during their early years. Today, the vast majority of laptops are clamshells, and smartphones slabs of glass—an outcome not of collusion, but of convergent evolution, driven by practicality and user expectations. The metaphor is apt: just as many crab-like creatures evolved similar forms because those shapes work best, so too did device makers settle on what worked for end users.
Yet, at the very moment where convergence is most needed—when accessing settings—fragmentation prevails. This is a product of IT’s historical baggage, where ecosystems developed in silos, and each manufacturer prioritized “walled gardens” and user retention over simplicity and portability. Resistance to standardization is framed as “differentiation” or, in the case of accessibility, dismissed as costly and complex. But the truth is, for the companies at the top, implementing such a standard would likely simplify development and testing, not the opposite.
Consider the scenario of a newly purchased laptop with tiny, low-contrast text. For a user with poor vision, the very settings needed to adjust the display are themselves rendered inaccessible. It is a frustrating Catch-22, absurdly reminiscent of an adventure game puzzle: the thing you need is locked behind the very thing you can’t see to change.
If a universally recognized settings standard were in place, not only would this paradox dissolve, but application and website developers could simply query the OS for a user’s known preferences. A growing field of accessibility APIs, such as Microsoft’s Accessibility Insights and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), hint at what is possible when tools and standards align. Still, in practice, only a fraction of products fully support these frameworks, and the biggest gains remain tantalizingly out of reach without device-level agreement.
That said, accessibility lawsuits and increasing demographic pressure (with aging populations demanding better device usability) may yet shift the calculus. As noted by legal and policy experts, the concept of “reasonable accommodation” could be stretched to cover standardized, importable UI settings—provided enough visibility, political will, and user demand coalesce.
Such a move would signal the maturation of personal computing—an admission that, at its core, information technology’s central purpose is not differentiation for its own sake, but empowerment, inclusion, and universal usability. This would not impede innovation or competition; rather, it would clear the underbrush that obscures those things which make products truly unique.
Yet, optimism must be tempered. There is no sign that the necessary “ten people” are ready to be locked into a room and denied their beer and crayons until consensus emerges. What remains is a greater reliance on clever advocacy, consumer visibility, and the strategic use of existing equality-of-access legislation to drive demand for better standards.
In the end, what is at stake is not just convenience but dignity; not just efficiency, but the right to shape the tools we all rely on. If the world’s tech leaders summoned the collective will, it truly would be one small step toward a more civilized, humane digital society—one long overdue.
Source: theregister.com A tiny tech tribe could change the world tomorrow, but won't
At the heart of the matter lies the observation that just ten people—those responsible for signing off on the design of settings menus and configuration standards at Apple, Google, Microsoft, Samsung, and Sony—have at their fingertips the power to make computing better for everyone, in perpetuity. Imagine a single, universal standard: one that would define which user-adjustable features are available on every device with a screen, where exactly those features reside in the settings menu, and how all those settings are stored in a common data structure. Implemented, it would not only save vast swathes of time for users worldwide but, more importantly, would make IT meaningfully better for all, permanently.
We have become so inured to the friction and confusion of device setup that we seldom question why features like adjusting text size, changing color themes, or selecting preferred input methods still require a scavenger hunt through nested menus. For the neurodivergent, visually impaired, or elderly, these settings can make the difference between autonomy and exclusion. Yet, even for the able-bodied and tech-savvy, the digital landscape is littered with accounts of frustration: new phones with unfamiliar menus, public terminals that cannot be easily personalized, and headaches migrating from one platform to another.The vision is elegantly simple. Were all major platform vendors to agree on:
- The core set of configurable features (text size, color contrast, input methods, preferred language, etc.)
- A standardized, top-level location for these controls in every device’s settings menu
- A common data structure—say, a portable JSON schema, extensible for future requirements—to store and share preferences
Learnings from Other Standardizations
This idea, while seemingly radical for consumer computing, echoes progress made in other industries. The automobile, for instance, went through years of chaos before steering wheels, pedals, and indicators were standardized. Today, you can rent a car anywhere and be confident you’ll know how to drive it. Without such consensus, cars would be little more than elaborate booby traps for the unwary.Electronic devices, too, converged during their early years. Today, the vast majority of laptops are clamshells, and smartphones slabs of glass—an outcome not of collusion, but of convergent evolution, driven by practicality and user expectations. The metaphor is apt: just as many crab-like creatures evolved similar forms because those shapes work best, so too did device makers settle on what worked for end users.
Yet, at the very moment where convergence is most needed—when accessing settings—fragmentation prevails. This is a product of IT’s historical baggage, where ecosystems developed in silos, and each manufacturer prioritized “walled gardens” and user retention over simplicity and portability. Resistance to standardization is framed as “differentiation” or, in the case of accessibility, dismissed as costly and complex. But the truth is, for the companies at the top, implementing such a standard would likely simplify development and testing, not the opposite.
Accessibility: The Neglected Imperative
The lack of uniform UI settings particularly stings for users with disabilities or special needs. In many regions, legislation exists mandating reasonable accommodations for those with vision, mobility, or cognitive impairments. Yet, actual implementation falls far short of meeting those obligations, often because large players have no incentive to cooperate on standards that would benefit everyone, but especially the marginalized.Consider the scenario of a newly purchased laptop with tiny, low-contrast text. For a user with poor vision, the very settings needed to adjust the display are themselves rendered inaccessible. It is a frustrating Catch-22, absurdly reminiscent of an adventure game puzzle: the thing you need is locked behind the very thing you can’t see to change.
If a universally recognized settings standard were in place, not only would this paradox dissolve, but application and website developers could simply query the OS for a user’s known preferences. A growing field of accessibility APIs, such as Microsoft’s Accessibility Insights and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), hint at what is possible when tools and standards align. Still, in practice, only a fraction of products fully support these frameworks, and the biggest gains remain tantalizingly out of reach without device-level agreement.
The Benefits Beyond Accessibility
Although accessibility is the clearest and most urgent case for a universal settings standard, there are broader advantages.- Streamlined Onboarding: New device setup would be greatly simplified. Users could import their settings from the cloud, a portable file, or a companion app, drastically reducing configuration times.
- Consistency and Reduced Errors: Shared or public devices would instantly be usable by anyone, reducing accidental misconfiguration and making IT less error-prone.
- Developer Efficiency: Application developers could focus on creative UI enhancements, leveraging the machine’s stored user preferences for optimal presentation. No need to reinvent controls for text scaling, dark mode, or localization.
- Innovation, Not Restriction: Some fear that standards stifle progress and differentiation, but modern extensible data schemas (like JSON) are designed to evolve. Apple’s long opposition to USB Type-C under the banner of “innovation” was ultimately overcome by EU regulation, demonstrating both the limits of walled gardens and the power of well-designed interoperability.
- Privacy and Security: A well-architected standard could be designed to respect user consent and security, with granular permissions for what preferences can be shared or imported on a given device.
Why Hasn’t It Happened?
This begs the question: with so many incentives and so few real barriers, why has a universal standard for device settings not been implemented?- Corporate Inertia and Differentiation: Large companies often see user lock-in as a competitive advantage. Making it less painful to switch or use multiple platforms does not always align with profit motives.
- Historical Baggage: Device ecosystems have evolved separately, with their own architectures, naming conventions, and technical debt. The cost of initial transition, though overstated, is not negligible.
- Lack of Regulatory Pressure: Unlike with charging standards or emissions, there is little legislative impetus to enforce global accessibility integration.
- Undervalued Accessibility: Despite increasing legal protections for people with disabilities, many product teams still see accessibility enhancements as add-ons rather than core requirements.
Potential Risks and Critical Considerations
While the argument for a standard is compelling, it carries risks and complexity that must be thoughtfully managed.- Implementation Overhead and Compatibility: Vendors would need to invest significantly in overhauling their settings management and UI frameworks, especially for legacy devices.
- Extension vs. Fragmentation: To avoid merely replacing one set of incompatibilities with another, extensibility must be carefully scoped. Without strong governance, one company’s “extensions” could reintroduce incompatibility, undermining the whole effort.
- Security Pitfalls: If user settings are to be portable, safeguards are necessary to prevent abuse—e.g., to stop malicious actors from using settings files as a vector for attacks or unwanted surveillance.
- User Confusion: While the medium- to long-term effects would be simplification, the transition could result in temporary confusion as old menus and workflows are replaced.
- Vendor Resistance: History shows that platform vendors commit to openness only when forced by regulation, market pressure, or clear competitive advantage. Achieving voluntary consensus will be difficult.
A Legally-Driven Solution?
If market incentives have not been sufficient, could legislation compel the change? The answer is a cautious yes. The European Union’s success in mandating USB-C as a charging standard for most devices provides a template. The EU’s Digital Services Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act both create frameworks that could, in theory, justify mandatory harmonization of accessibility settings. However, precedent suggests regulation tends to target hardware and content, not the squishier, software-level user experience.That said, accessibility lawsuits and increasing demographic pressure (with aging populations demanding better device usability) may yet shift the calculus. As noted by legal and policy experts, the concept of “reasonable accommodation” could be stretched to cover standardized, importable UI settings—provided enough visibility, political will, and user demand coalesce.
An Opportunity We May Never Seize
Were the “tiny tech tribe” of settings czars at Apple, Google, Microsoft, Samsung, and Sony to act, they could make a universal settings standard happen, almost overnight. The collective ability of these organizations dwarfs the technical complexity of the task; what is needed is the will to collaborate, channeled through a common interface that would let users, for perhaps the first time, shape their digital world as easily as they drive a car or sip from a glass.Such a move would signal the maturation of personal computing—an admission that, at its core, information technology’s central purpose is not differentiation for its own sake, but empowerment, inclusion, and universal usability. This would not impede innovation or competition; rather, it would clear the underbrush that obscures those things which make products truly unique.
Conclusion: The Civilized Next Step
As we stand on the precipice of further digital transformation—the expansion of augmented reality, wearables, and interconnected “smart” devices—the need for inclusive, universal, portable user settings is more pressing than ever. Every day delayed is another day of waste, confusion, and sometimes, exclusion.Yet, optimism must be tempered. There is no sign that the necessary “ten people” are ready to be locked into a room and denied their beer and crayons until consensus emerges. What remains is a greater reliance on clever advocacy, consumer visibility, and the strategic use of existing equality-of-access legislation to drive demand for better standards.
In the end, what is at stake is not just convenience but dignity; not just efficiency, but the right to shape the tools we all rely on. If the world’s tech leaders summoned the collective will, it truly would be one small step toward a more civilized, humane digital society—one long overdue.
Source: theregister.com A tiny tech tribe could change the world tomorrow, but won't