 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 03.08.2015 um 21:35 schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
> On 03/08/2015 08:10 AM, clipka wrote:
>> Or
>> Microsoft's primary programming language and environment, Visual Studio
>> and C#, which in my book is as close as anyone has ever gotten to a
>> programmer's dream.
>
> Um... hello there. :-}
Don't say a word. You're a Haskell enthusiast, and therefore by
definition you don't have programmer's dreams - you have psychotic
hallucinations :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 20:47:49 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 8/3/2015 7:46 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Interaction design = design that implements features that facilitate
>> useful user interaction, rather than features that are focused on "we
>> implemented this feature, and here's an interface to use it".
>>
>> For example, if you have an application that protects web resources,
>> the interface needs to facilitate protecting web resources - it should
>> not focus on configuring individual objects that are used to protect
>> those resources, and leave it to the user to figure out how they are
>> related to each other.
>>
>> Tie idea is that there needs to be some elegance and simplicity in the
>> design.*Most* software "design" is done during development, rather
>> than preceding it, and so the form follows the interface rather than
>> designing how the interface workflow should work, and then using that
>> as scaffolding for the underlying code that takes care of the details.
>
>
> I think I disagree with that concept.
> For me, education is King or Queen. (I am an equal opportunity know it
> all.)
> When you start simplifying complex software to the extent you think the
> man on the Clapham omnibus can operate it without any training. You are
> doing no one any favours. I learnt a word recently. It is nerfed. And
> that is the Micro$oft way.
> Form should follow function, not the other way around.
> IMO
Take a look at Apple products and interfaces, then take a look at
Microsoft products and interfaces.
Apple understands the benefits of designing before you implement the
backend.
The trick is to not dumb down the capabilities, but to make them easy to
use.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 23:44:27 +0200, clipka wrote:
> Am 03.08.2015 um 21:47 schrieb Stephen:
>
>> I think I disagree with that concept.
>> For me, education is King or Queen. (I am an equal opportunity know it
>> all.)
>> When you start simplifying complex software to the extent you think the
>> man on the Clapham omnibus can operate it without any training. You are
>> doing no one any favours. I learnt a word recently. It is nerfed. And
>> that is the Micro$oft way.
>> Form should follow function, not the other way around.
>> IMO
>
> Good old Bauhaus tradition.
>
> On the other hand, the Bauhaus designers meant something different when
> referring to "form" and "function". To them, "function" included
> ergonomic requirements (such as, you should be able to hold an electric
> razor in one hand conveniently, and the power cord should be placed in
> such a way that you won't strangle yourself with it), while "form" was
> strictly limited to aesthetic aspects.
>
> I think one branch of software development that's doing a pretty good
> job in terms of User Experience is the gaming industry. Look at what
> they do when it comes to graphics configuration: They usually provide
> you with a simple 1-dimensional "quality" setting to balance the
> graphics quality vs. speed, hiding the technical details of what each
> setting actually means in technical terms. At the same time they do
> provide an additional interface for people who think they know better,
> allowing them to tweak all the little details. (And often there's even a
> third tier of technical tweakables, for which there is no user interface
> except a config file.)
Exactly. :)
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/3/2015 10:48 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 03.08.2015 um 21:35 schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>> On 03/08/2015 08:10 AM, clipka wrote:
>>> Or
>>> Microsoft's primary programming language and environment, Visual Studio
>>> and C#, which in my book is as close as anyone has ever gotten to a
>>> programmer's dream.
>>
>> Um... hello there. :-}
>
> Don't say a word. You're a Haskell enthusiast, and therefore by
> definition you don't have programmer's dreams - you have psychotic
> hallucinations :-P
>
Don't beat about the bush, Clipka. Tell him what you really think. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/4/2015 12:36 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I think I disagree with that concept.
>> >For me, education is King or Queen. (I am an equal opportunity know it
>> >all.)
>> >When you start simplifying complex software to the extent you think the
>> >man on the Clapham omnibus can operate it without any training. You are
>> >doing no one any favours. I learnt a word recently. It is nerfed. And
>> >that is the Micro$oft way.
>> >Form should follow function, not the other way around.
>> >IMO
> Take a look at Apple products and interfaces, then take a look at
> Microsoft products and interfaces.
>
> Apple understands the benefits of designing before you implement the
> backend.
>
I spent a whole five minuets thinking about this. And have come to the
conclusion that I have turned into the older generation, already.
Physically Apple products beat everything else hands down. IMO
Interfaces, they are not intuitive to me, too much thought has gone into
them and I feel that they are over engineered. But then when technology
morphs into consumer products. Something has to change to let the little
darlings use it without straining their capabilities.
So I will sit back, keep my gob shut, if I can, and wait for the sky to
fall.
> The trick is to not dumb down the capabilities, but to make them easy to
> use.
I could not agree more. It is the detail where the devil resides.
I would like to hear Patrick's opinion on this.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/08/2015 06:53 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 8/3/2015 10:48 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Don't say a word. You're a Haskell enthusiast, and therefore by
>> definition you don't have programmer's dreams - you have psychotic
>> hallucinations :-P
>>
>
> Don't beat about the bush, Clipka. Tell him what you really think. ;-)
Don't worry, I already got that from this guy:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/21/financial_software_disasters/?page=2
"And one language I’ve been warned about, though I’ve never had the
opportunity to use it, is Haskell, an offshoot of ML. According to a
friend in academia who’s studied it, it’s “the Taliban version of ML,”
in which it’s all but impossible to write readable code."
Yes, because if you read the linked Stack Overflow question, you'll see
how this function is actually "x = 1 : map (*2)", followed by no less
than 15 steps of deliberate obfuscation.
In other words "I looked up the most unnecessarily complex piece of code
I could find in language XYZ, thereby proving that it's impossible to
write readable code in language XYZ".
Jesus, just because a language requires you to *use your brain* and
learn to *think differently* does not mean it is "impossible to write
readable code with it". >:-[
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> To say nothing of the privacy and confidentiality issues of having
> Microsoft have access to every file you ever create. (I doubt too many
> corporate types would like having their propriety data on a hostile 3rd
> party server.)
That's why I say medium-large corporations will be the problem. They
have set, highly evolved ways of doing things (including security) and
will be reluctant to change.
>> Their big problem will be the medium-large corporations that take
>> months, if not years to test and roll out major software updates. There
>> is no way they would accept the possibility of one day their entire
>> company coming to a halt with millions of pounds lost due to an MS
>> "update" that has broken something somewhere within their business. Also
>> a lot of systems are not connected to the internet for various reasons,
>> how would they work?
>
> They also have a problem with SOHO setups where people wouldn't know
> what "computer security" is if it hit them in the face.
I wouldn't be surprised if having all your files on a remote MS server
somewhere woudl actually be *more secure* than left on someone's SOHO
setup that has no clue about security.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I agree that if you're selling 3D-tictactoe-as-a-Service, and expect
> people to call you for support, you may have a problem, but complex
> software such as ERPs, or even industry-grade CAD systems _should_
> require some level of training to install and operate properly.
I get the distinct impression that some software (especially >£10k) is
kept more complex than it needs to be *on purpose* so that companies can
sell expensive support contracts.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/4/2015 8:19 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Don't beat about the bush, Clipka. Tell him what you really think. ;-)
>
> Don't worry, I already got that from this guy:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/21/financial_software_disasters/?page=2
>
>
Thanks for the link. I enjoyed reading it because it confirms my
prejudices. :)
> “They think that if they’re not writing 80 lines of code to add two numbers,
they’re not using their education.”
How true that one is.
In SAP there is a trend for programmers to move into configuration.
Their implementations are all about writing bespoke code to do what can
be done with half an hour's training or a small change in methodology.
Nightmare!
> "And one language I’ve been warned about, though I’ve never had the
> opportunity to use it, is Haskell, an offshoot of ML. According to a
> friend in academia who’s studied it, it’s “the Taliban version of ML,”
> in which it’s all but impossible to write readable code."
>
> Yes, because if you read the linked Stack Overflow question, you'll see
> how this function is actually "x = 1 : map (*2)", followed by no less
> than 15 steps of deliberate obfuscation.
>
> In other words "I looked up the most unnecessarily complex piece of code
> I could find in language XYZ, thereby proving that it's impossible to
> write readable code in language XYZ".
>
Well, what do you expect when someone wants to make a point? ;-)
> Jesus, just because a language requires you to *use your brain* and
> learn to *think differently* does not mean it is "impossible to write
> readable code with it". >:-[
Do you think that this is because that using your brain is a threat to
your management?
Remember (no it is too long ago to actually remember) education for the
working class and slaves. Was considered a bad thing for the ruling
classes. It gave the lower orders ideas above their station.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/4/2015 8:50 AM, scott wrote:
>> I agree that if you're selling 3D-tictactoe-as-a-Service, and expect
>> people to call you for support, you may have a problem, but complex
>> software such as ERPs, or even industry-grade CAD systems _should_
>> require some level of training to install and operate properly.
>
> I get the distinct impression that some software (especially >£10k) is
> kept more complex than it needs to be *on purpose* so that companies can
> sell expensive support contracts.
>
Wheesht! ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
