 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/4/2015 5:34 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 07:51:05 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>
>> 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
>
You think that is funny?
Wait a couple of years and you will start to sound like your dad or his
mates. ;-)
>> 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.
That was a mp3 player, wasn't it?
Ah dinnae ken, then.
> 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). :)
>
I married your mother?
My wife is a devote of King Ludd. :-)
But that is my point. Apple is very good for people that just want to
use it for what it does. I find it is a pain the the butt as it works
differently from PCs.
BTW do you know how I can downgrade her iPad 2. I updated it a couple of
months ago and she does not like the way it behaves. (It is an iPad 2
and had not been upgraded since I bought it for her, when it came out.
>
> 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.
>
No argument with that. But it is not what I am used to.
> 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.
>
And here is me thinking that you start with the clients requirements.
> 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.
Fee fi fo fum. I smell the blood of someone who believes what he is saying.
It is more complex than that. IMO
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 21:25:09 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 8/4/2015 5:34 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 07:51:05 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>
>
>>> 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
>>
>>
> You think that is funny?
> Wait a couple of years and you will start to sound like your dad or his
> mates. ;-)
I've already started doing that, and I've embraced it. ;)
>>> 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.
>
> That was a mp3 player, wasn't it?
Yes, gramps. ;)
> Ah dinnae ken, then.
>
>> 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). :)
>>
>>
> I married your mother?
> My wife is a devote of King Ludd. :-)
>
> But that is my point. Apple is very good for people that just want to
> use it for what it does. I find it is a pain the the butt as it works
> differently from PCs.
That's part of my point, though - these are devices that are designed to
be used. Just because a system is more complex doesn't mean it needs to
look like the Space Shuttle. That's why it's important to start with
interaction design and understand how a user is going to use it.
> BTW do you know how I can downgrade her iPad 2. I updated it a couple of
> months ago and she does not like the way it behaves. (It is an iPad 2
> and had not been upgraded since I bought it for her, when it came out.
No idea, I have a Samsung tablet (just received today, in fact).
>> 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.
>>
>>
> No argument with that. But it is not what I am used to.
Sure, it's not what *anyone* is used to - and so we're all apologists for
poor user interaction/interface/experience design.
But that can't be fixed if we're not willing to change things in software
design and development. What's the old definition of 'insanity' again?
>> 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.
>>
>>
> And here is me thinking that you start with the clients requirements.
LOL - well, yes, that's where you start. Design aesthetic is an
important consideration.
>> 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.
>
> Fee fi fo fum. I smell the blood of someone who believes what he is
> saying.
>
> It is more complex than that. IMO
I don't think it is, actually - if you leave a software engineer to
design a user interface, they're going to design one that mimics the
underlying structure of the software - because they're *intimately*
familiar with the way those internals work.
But the average user of any software program isn't that familiar with the
internals - so the interface doesn't make a lot of sense to them.
Which means they have to take classes on how to perform basic tasks, and
they need complicated manuals that describe all the different knobs they
need to turn and settings they need to configure in order to get the
behaviour they want.
If you start with "why is the user using this software", you can design
an interaction that lets the user solve their business problem. That
doesn't mean you hide all the knobs, but you design around the most
common use cases so those tasks can be accomplished with a minimum of
fuss.
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 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.
If you're worried about what the NSA might think about your work then I
wouldn't be connected to the internet *at all*, let alone uploading
files to American companies' servers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
