Two approaches to no-code design: one builds human-friendly metaphors on top of machine logic, like Bubble's expression language, while the other teaches users to think like machines, surfacing concrete data and execution steps. Each trades off usability against fidelity.
I see two mental models for how no-code systems are designed to be helpful and do more no-coding. The first is where you take the way the machine works and you try to elevate it, put it in terms of metaphors that human beings can understand more readily. Basically to have computers speak human. This is actually very effective. I would say this is like the way Bubble works. It's just trying to create an expression language that looks more like human. And that's one of the things I wanted to define you guys is that the formance tends to get a little bit worse, as you spend more of a cycle trying to take the user's hands to achieve things. The other kind is where you're trying to bring the cueing down to a machine thing, and that's when it creates a friendlier interface for a person to speak into. A big one is Janna Works in this way, where they are providing you with a bunch of stats about the ETDs, but that is she teaching you to execute it.
