It is not the case? Even if you had to do only 1 extra click of the same kind that is a negative on the usability. The reality is much worse though. You can benchmark the usability in an amateur way. Put a timer and see how many transactions you can make with Metamask on uniswap in 1 minute. Now try the same with ledger and Metamask and you will see that the difference is extraordinary.
I don't know why you would advocate differently because the usability and security tradeoff is taught at every IT in these subjects, you can find it in most security or usability books.
It is one of those widely known facts and not new knowledge so I don't get it.
Oh, I would by no means recommend doing such experiments with Metamask. Firstly, this is one of the most inconvenient wallets, in my opinion, and secondly, it does not support a wired connection to Keystone 3 pro, which can sign transactions a little faster in this mode.I don't know why you would advocate differently because the usability and security tradeoff is taught at every IT in these subjects, you can find it in most security or usability books.
It is one of those widely known facts and not new knowledge so I don't get it.But in general, I can't disagree that using a hardware wallet slows down the process. I especially felt this with Safepal products, where the browser extension on the PC still requires the use of a mobile application, and then also a hardware wallet.
A lot of additional actions, yes.
But in what cases might someone need to make the maximum number of transactions per minute? To those who participate in the testnet? Wallets with real balances are never connected there, I guess.