"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:04:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in
message
news
Have you tried Xnews at all? I'm not a geek, so I don't really get
into tweaking news readers, but my two youngest love it and can make
it do some fancy tricks.

We shouldn't have to fiddle that much to make software work correctly.
Proper requirements gathering and design are supposed to take care of
these
things, but that process is sadly lacking from most open source projects,
as
well as quite a few shareware/commercial products. Say what you will
about
Microsoft, but in terms of what they do BEFORE the coding begins, their
process is almost perfect.

I sort of agree with you on that. However, what techheads might think
of as being a good idea, isn't always a good idea. What techheads
might think of as perfectly comprehensible and/or intuitive is
gibberish to a user. And that is the real problem with open source
because you have the same technoids messing around with what should be
a simple concept and all have differing ideas about how stuff should
work.

In a correctly ordered software project, the processes I described are not
done by tech heads. As you said, this usually spells disaster. Requirements
gathering is a dialog between designers and the intended user population,
with programmers left OUT of the loop for the time being. Ideally, designers
are people who know what the programmers are capable of, but that's the
extent of their involvement with programming.

Mozilla is a perfect example of a train wreck. There was NO requirements
gathering whatsoever. A year ago, open source participants were telling
newsgroup visitors that Mozilla was not intended to be a finished product
for general users. Rather, it was supposed to be a demonstration of the
underlying coding technology, which they've named "Gecko". Who it was a demo
for, nobody can really say. Perhaps they wanted to sell it as embedded
technology, for cell phones and such. When users complained about all the
horrors built into the product, the usual response was "It's open source. If
you don't like something, you're welcome to contribute some code". The
ultimate tech head private club. What if you happen to be an English
teacher, not a programmer?

Now, however, they've backtracked and they're listening to user
requirements. Unfortunately, the monster is already walking around, burping
and farting. Hey Harry...try this with Mozilla: Hit CTRL-B to open your
bookmark file. Hit CTRL-F, and enter something that you know it'll find
within your collection. When it finds the bookmark(s), what's wrong with the
way the result is presented?

It's also a somewhat concept becuase it is "open source" only to those
who understand the coding structure - thus the end results will be the
same.

Exactly, but worse: Many of the contributors to BIG open source projects are
children. Literally. Teenagers who think it's cool to see their defective
code included in something famous. But, they never got the message about
gathering requirements first.


I don't know if you enjoy computer books or not, but the bible of user
interface design is quite fascinating. It's called "About Face 2.0: The
Essentials of Interaction Design", by Alan Cooper. When you're done with
it,
you'll know exactly which software authors belong in hell for all
eternity.

I'll look it up - thanks for the tip.

The above book is a good read for users, or people involved in software
construction. Cooper was responsible for the design of Visual Basic, but he
still takes plenty of pot shots at his old employer. It makes the book fun.
Here's another that would probably put most users right to sleep, but it's a
classic:
"Exploring Requirements - Quality Before Design", by Donald C. Gause &
Gerald M. Weinberg. It's a $44.00 textbook, but many libraries have it,
usually covered with dust. It's a real eye-opener because it makes it quite
clear which software firms missed the boat entirely.

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 01:41:17 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

I sort of agree with you on that. However, what techheads might think
of as being a good idea, isn't always a good idea. What techheads
might think of as perfectly comprehensible and/or intuitive is
gibberish to a user. And that is the real problem with open source
because you have the same technoids messing around with what should be
a simple concept and all have differing ideas about how stuff should
work.

Yeah, but . . . Most open source software works quite well out of the box,
being configurable is a major plus. Open source software may not be for
everyone, but I love it. Anytime I am forced to use a Microsoft product,
I find it very limiting and frustrating. With open source I can set up my
system as I want to, not as Microsoft thinks I should.

It's also a somewhat concept becuase it is "open source" only to those
who understand the coding structure - thus the end results will be the
same.

As the code is readily available, you can go that deeply, but it is by no
means necessary. Open source has come a long way and allows many choices.
It may not be your choice, but it is the choice of a growing number of
users.

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:04:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


We shouldn't have to fiddle that much to make software work correctly.

I would agree, but...

Proper requirements gathering and design are supposed to take care of
these
things,

I'm not a proponent of one size fits all. You can dumb down software
to the point that *anybody* can use it at the expense of
conformability.

You're talking about eliminating customization. I'm talking about
eliminating the need to tweak, just to get your work done. There's quite a
difference.


Say what you will about
Microsoft, but in terms of what they do BEFORE the coding begins, their
process is almost perfect.


Too bad the product doesn't follow suit... not a week goes by that I
don't have to download some patch or other.... or, until Win2000
experience the BSD every day or so.....

Apples and oranges. Yes, MS has security problems, and they're worse than
GWB, in terms of covering up the truth until the computer press blows their
cover. But: Try and make a list of 10 things you absolutely hate about Excel
or Word, in terms of USABILITY.


Give people their due. Micro$oft has not hired all of the good
thinkers and coders in the world..... there is some really good
software out there that lacks Micro$oft's advertising budget.

Of course! I'm simply pointing out that Microsoft gets slammed on a
wholesale basis because of their security issues. If you follow all the
press about their products, though, you find little or nothing negative
about USABILITY. That's where they did their homework.

And see? I find MS Word so "feature packed" that I had a hard time getting
it to do the basics without reading the docs a bit.

-W


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message news:5ADVb.15173

Of course! I'm simply pointing out that Microsoft gets slammed on a
wholesale basis because of their security issues. If you follow all the
press about their products, though, you find little or nothing negative
about USABILITY. That's where they did their homework.

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 03:54:09 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

~~snippity do da ~~

In a correctly ordered software project, the processes I described are not
done by tech heads. As you said, this usually spells disaster. Requirements
gathering is a dialog between designers and the intended user population,
with programmers left OUT of the loop for the time being. Ideally, designers
are people who know what the programmers are capable of, but that's the
extent of their involvement with programming.

Again, I agree. The wrinkle is when you design a piece of software
(by design I mean set up a set of specifications - I want the software
to do this and this...etc.). Once it gets to the technoids it becomes
a fight between the hardware folks ("that's not a hardware function -
it's a firmware function"), the firmware folks ("that's not a firmware
function, that's a software function") and the software folks ("Well,
we can do that but you have to change the specifications because the
software won't do this and this and...oh, by the way it will take at
least a year to eighteen months unless you get the hardware to change
this and firmware to do this".

Been there, done that. :)

The design process in most pure software projects is alo a train
wreck. Programmers are given a set of specifications, the wrangle
about what can and can't be done begins, marketing gets involved,
first run gets to the customer who goes "what the f---?" :)

Back it goes for Rev: 1.1.

Been there, done that. ;)

Of course, the answer is good solid engineering management, but the
managers are busy with personnel reports, turf fights, personality
conflicts, political fights, avoiding tough projects, answering
questions from on high, writing evaluations, that they dont' have time
to keep up with the technical stuff and get into the "make it go away"
mode.

Been there, done that. :)

In a perfect world, you would be on the mark. There ain't no such
thing.

~~ snippity do da ~~

It's also a somewhat concept becuase it is "open source" only to those
who understand the coding structure - thus the end results will be the
same.

Exactly, but worse: Many of the contributors to BIG open source projects are
children. Literally. Teenagers who think it's cool to see their defective
code included in something famous. But, they never got the message about
gathering requirements first.

LOL!!!! Man, I could tell you stories....

I don't know if you enjoy computer books or not, but the bible of user
interface design is quite fascinating. It's called "About Face 2.0: The
Essentials of Interaction Design", by Alan Cooper. When you're done with
it,
you'll know exactly which software authors belong in hell for all
eternity.

I'll look it up - thanks for the tip.

The above book is a good read for users, or people involved in software
construction. Cooper was responsible for the design of Visual Basic, but he
still takes plenty of pot shots at his old employer. It makes the book fun.
Here's another that would probably put most users right to sleep, but it's a
classic:
"Exploring Requirements - Quality Before Design", by Donald C. Gause &
Gerald M. Weinberg. It's a $44.00 textbook, but many libraries have it,
usually covered with dust. It's a real eye-opener because it makes it quite
clear which software firms missed the boat entirely.

Something tells me I've read this at some point. I'll go down to
UCONN and look it up. It's on the list - thanks for the tip.

Well, once I finish making up this years set of jigs, tubes and
fishign rods, I'll find time to read it. :)

See, that's the thing about being retired - you are about as busy as
you were when you were working.

Only it's more fun.

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
----------

"To the fisherman born there is nothing
so provoking of curiosity as a fishing rod
in a case."

Roland Pertwee, "The River God" (1928)

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 22:57:02 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 01:41:17 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

I sort of agree with you on that. However, what techheads might think
of as being a good idea, isn't always a good idea. What techheads
might think of as perfectly comprehensible and/or intuitive is
gibberish to a user. And that is the real problem with open source
because you have the same technoids messing around with what should be
a simple concept and all have differing ideas about how stuff should
work.

Yeah, but . . . Most open source software works quite well out of the box,
being configurable is a major plus. Open source software may not be for
everyone, but I love it. Anytime I am forced to use a Microsoft product,
I find it very limiting and frustrating. With open source I can set up my
system as I want to, not as Microsoft thinks I should.

That's exactly what Doug and I have been discussing. Not everybody
has the same capability or abilities that you have. Folks like me
need folks like you to program something that we can use only you
can't deal with that because your concept of what is "right" and/or
"correct" conflicts with mine. It's human nature.

Ok, that maybe too strong and I don't mean to offend, but it is a
basic fact of human/software interaction - what my concept of a
particular problem is different than your concept.

For example, let's say that I want to have a certain function on my
screen - you look at that and say that it's already there, all you
need to do is this and you have that function - I say, I don't care, I
want to get there doing this. You go off muttering and make it do
this.

That's how we came up with these cluges like OE and Explorer.

It's also a somewhat concept becuase it is "open source" only to those
who understand the coding structure - thus the end results will be the
same.

As the code is readily available, you can go that deeply, but it is by no
means necessary. Open source has come a long way and allows many choices.
It may not be your choice, but it is the choice of a growing number of
users.

Again, agreed. But if any software is only usable to a certain group
of people, then its functionality is specific to that group and only
that group. At that point, it becomes "closed".

Lynix is close to become exactly that - just like every other "open"
source system since day one.

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
----------

"To the fisherman born there is nothing
so provoking of curiosity as a fishing rod
in a case."

Roland Pertwee, "The River God" (1928)

And see? I find MS Word so "feature packed" that I had a hard time
getting
it to do the basics without reading the docs a bit.

Good. More people should read the instructions. Where did you ever read that
instructions wouldn't be necessary? If more people did, maybe the MS
newsgroups wouldn't be full of questions like "What's the diff btw save and
save as?"

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 01:41:17 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

I sort of agree with you on that. However, what techheads might think
of as being a good idea, isn't always a good idea. What techheads
might think of as perfectly comprehensible and/or intuitive is
gibberish to a user. And that is the real problem with open source
because you have the same technoids messing around with what should be
a simple concept and all have differing ideas about how stuff should
work.

Yeah, but . . . Most open source software works quite well out of the box,
being configurable is a major plus. Open source software may not be for
everyone, but I love it. Anytime I am forced to use a Microsoft product,
I find it very limiting and frustrating. With open source I can set up my
system as I want to, not as Microsoft thinks I should.

It's also a somewhat concept becuase it is "open source" only to those
who understand the coding structure - thus the end results will be the
same.

As the code is readily available, you can go that deeply, but it is by no
means necessary. Open source has come a long way and allows many choices.
It may not be your choice, but it is the choice of a growing number of
users.


It's a cool idea. But I'll venture a guess and say that 90% of users have
absolutely no knowledge of programming. They shouldn't have to. No different
than the way most people view their cars. Most people have no interest in
customizing, and have no clue as to how they work. They just want the things
to run. Imagine if hammers, vacuum cleaners and lawnmowers behaved like
computer software. There'd be armed uprisings.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

As the code is readily available, you can go that deeply, but it is by no
means necessary. Open source has come a long way and allows many
choices.
It may not be your choice, but it is the choice of a growing number of
users.

Again, agreed. But if any software is only usable to a certain group
of people, then its functionality is specific to that group and only
that group. At that point, it becomes "closed".

Lynix is close to become exactly that - just like every other "open"
source system since day one.

Mozilla, too. Newsgroups and web sites are loaded with ideas for tweaking
the thing, and some of those tweaks are necessary in order to stop behaviors
that are annoyances to large numbers of users. Tweaks are fun, except for
one thing: I have this thing called a full time job.

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:06:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 01:41:17 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

I sort of agree with you on that. However, what techheads might think
of as being a good idea, isn't always a good idea. What techheads
might think of as perfectly comprehensible and/or intuitive is
gibberish to a user. And that is the real problem with open source
because you have the same technoids messing around with what should be
a simple concept and all have differing ideas about how stuff should
work.

Yeah, but . . . Most open source software works quite well out of the box,
being configurable is a major plus. Open source software may not be for
everyone, but I love it. Anytime I am forced to use a Microsoft product,
I find it very limiting and frustrating. With open source I can set up my
system as I want to, not as Microsoft thinks I should.

It's also a somewhat concept becuase it is "open source" only to those
who understand the coding structure - thus the end results will be the
same.

As the code is readily available, you can go that deeply, but it is by no
means necessary. Open source has come a long way and allows many choices.
It may not be your choice, but it is the choice of a growing number of
users.


It's a cool idea. But I'll venture a guess and say that 90% of users have
absolutely no knowledge of programming. They shouldn't have to. No different
than the way most people view their cars. Most people have no interest in
customizing, and have no clue as to how they work. They just want the things
to run. Imagine if hammers, vacuum cleaners and lawnmowers behaved like
computer software. There'd be armed uprisings.

And that's an even more interesting point.

I read somewhere that in Explorer (since the advent of Explorer),
people only use 30% of the functions available to them - everything
else is overhead.

The reason was explained as "too complicated".

Your example of "save" and "save as" is a perfect example. Why do you
need two save functions? Why not just have save? A little "window"
pops up and the default is what the file was named offering you the
opportunity to change the name or not. Why "save as"?

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
----------

"To the fisherman born there is nothing
so provoking of curiosity as a fishing rod
in a case."

Roland Pertwee, "The River God" (1928)