On 8/3/2015 10:44 PM, clipka wrote:

>
> Good old Bauhaus tradition.
>

Indeed! So good that the Nazis shut them down.
That is a plus in my opinion. :-)

> 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.
>

True. But different times and different industries.

> 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.)
>

I don't have much experience outside of Elite.
What you wrote describes how it is. A good thing too. :-)
Where would you put addons like SweetFx? Which BTW I cannot get to work.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> Then too, at what point do you think that the governments of the world will
> become comfortable with their internal communications being stored -- even
> temporarily -- in the buffer of someone else's computers? Personally, I think
> they'll go back to using typewriters first, but realistically, they'll probably
> just switch to linux.

More realistically, MS would never take any decision that forced a 
significant proportion of its user base to switch away from Windows.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 08:50:02 +0100, 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.

There is a cynical part of me that thinks that as well.

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 Tue, 04 Aug 2015 07:51:05 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> 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.

LOL

> 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.

Well, think about the original iPod interface as an example.  One button, 
one dial, intuitive to use.  My mother learned how to use it, and she's 
not the most technical person in the world (she would be the first to say 
it). :)

>> 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.

Properly designed technology is a joy to use.  The problem is that most 
user interaction is not designed by people trained in UX design - it's 
designed by developers who have had to run with the "design" mantle as 
part of the job.

When you build a building, you don't just start putting steel and 
concrete together - you start with a blueprint, and that blueprint 
defines a lot about what the final product looks like.  There are design 
elements that cover the infrastructure used, certainly - and those are 
designed by competent designers of those infrastructure components.

But the exterior isn't designed by the person who also designed the 
electrical system or the plumbing system.

Modern software UIs are typically designed by the electrician - which 
means that the light switches and outlets are all really well placed, but 
the things the user cares about are often not where the user would 
intuitively look.

That's not the fault of the proverbial electrician - it's a management 
issue.

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 Tue, 04 Aug 2015 14:58:32 +0100, scott wrote:

> More realistically, MS would never take any decision that forced a
> significant proportion of its user base to switch away from Windows.

Except that with Windows 10, they may well have done that, what with the 
privacy issues that are starting to surface.

The problem is that there's no other platform that's as widely used, so 
most people will probably just accept those problems.

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 04/08/2015 10:02 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> “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!

I have no idea what SAP is, but I'm told it was designed by Satan.

(So... that sounds basically like what most people think about Haskell, 
then!)

>> 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.
>
> Well, what do you expect when someone wants to make a point? ;-)

Seeing this almost makes me wonder if there's actually a say of writing 
Perl that's legible and comprehensible, and it's just that all the 
examples you see are actually incredibly badly written...

...and then I remember we're talking about Perl.

>> 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.

I don't know, man... Where I work, trying to get hold of any definitive 
kind of design specification is basically impossible, because the boss 
can't be bothered to *think* about the actual implications of the 
feature we wants. He expects us clever people to just "make it work". 
Even if that's completely self-contradictory.

(And people wonder why software is poorly designed...)

Post a reply to this message

On 04/08/2015 05:36 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 14:58:32 +0100, scott wrote:
>> More realistically, MS would never take any decision that forced a
>> significant proportion of its user base to switch away from Windows.
>
> Except that with Windows 10, they may well have done that, what with the
> privacy issues that are starting to surface.

Except that people have said that above every single version of Windows 
released this millennium.

For example,
http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20070331

Everybody hated Vista, said it was the worst thing ever to exist... and 
now nobody cares anymore. It seems just every time MS puts out a new OS, 
everybody hates it.

Post a reply to this message

>> 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.

On the one hand, I can see what you're saying. On the other hand, this 
clearly makes it drastically easier for the NSA to see what you're 
working on.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 17:57:54 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> On 04/08/2015 05:36 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 14:58:32 +0100, scott wrote:
>>> More realistically, MS would never take any decision that forced a
>>> significant proportion of its user base to switch away from Windows.
>>
>> Except that with Windows 10, they may well have done that, what with
>> the privacy issues that are starting to surface.
> 
> Except that people have said that above every single version of Windows
> released this millennium.
> 
> For example,
> http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20070331
> 
> Everybody hated Vista, said it was the worst thing ever to exist... and
> now nobody cares anymore. It seems just every time MS puts out a new OS,
> everybody hates it.

Slightly different issue with Windows 10.

http://www.techrepublic.com/article/windows-10-violates-your-privacy-by-
default-heres-how-you-can-protect-yourself/ explains it pretty well.

That's different (the privacy policy quote) than any previous release of 
Windows.

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 8/4/2015 5:54 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>
> I have no idea what SAP is, but I'm told it was designed by Satan.
>

And implemented by Beelzebub and his minions*. (Holds hand up with pride.)

> (So... that sounds basically like what most people think about Haskell,
> then!)
>

No. Most people have not even heard of Haskell. And I am talking about 
IT managers and the coders that I've met.


>>
>> Well, what do you expect when someone wants to make a point? ;-)
>
> Seeing this almost makes me wonder if there's actually a say of writing
> Perl that's legible and comprehensible, and it's just that all the
> examples you see are actually incredibly badly written...
>
> ....and then I remember we're talking about Perl.
>

Woosh!


>
> I don't know, man... Where I work, trying to get hold of any definitive
> kind of design specification is basically impossible, because the boss
> can't be bothered to *think* about the actual implications of the
> feature we wants. He expects us clever people to just "make it work".
> Even if that's completely self-contradictory.
>

Sack him.

Your company really needs to change the way it operates. Don't rely on 
salesmen to write the nitty gritty requirements. That has to be done by 
collaboration with someone in the clients company and someone who knows 
you product, intimately.


> (And people wonder why software is poorly designed...)

Quite so.

* A quick this is how I would describe it to a mundane.
SAP started out as a financial software package the expanded their scope 
to add support for other parts of large business.
They added Production Processes for manufacturing. That integrated the 
financial side of manufacturing with the rest of the software. This was 
expanded to include the maintenance of the production equipment.
Which is where I come in. I will define their processes of reporting a 
breakdown, repairing and recording the fault and the costs along with 
having the relevant spare parts in stock. Then analysing the breakdowns 
and carrying out preventative maintenance.
In short it is an integrated software package used to control large 
international companies.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message