On Sunday, March 16, 2003, at 02:14 AM, Chester wrote:
> We complain about Mr. Gates OS, but in fact 99% of the problem is with
> the user. We don't read the operators manual for our radios, do you
> really think we read the user's manual for the most important part of
> our computer? Heck No! The computer is 'exact' device, that is, it
> requires a 'one' or a 'zero' and if we users don't give it exactly what
> it requires, IT IS NOT GOING TO BE STABLE for us. Remember that
> computers are not as forgiving as our radios; after all we all know that
> 468/f is not an exactly correct formula for wavelength, but it gets us
> close. Using a 'format' that is not supplied with the OS is more than
> likely to get us close, but our computers believe 'close' is not good
> enough.
Good points. I've published academic articles about them, they are
important to keep in mind.
I would disagree with the "99 percent" of problems being the user
though. I am concerned with the *engineering* of software, especially
the interfaces. The "engineer," by definition, is tasked to produce a
machine that is *useful* to the humans who will use it. If many users
have trouble using the software defined machine, this is an engineering
failure, not a user failure. Usability can be improved vastly, though
it takes some resources. Blaming the user for bad interfaces is a
serious problem imho. This is not to say that Tom is wrong at all, he
is not. Users need to understand the instructions. I believe that for
hams this is a system problem, both sides work towards the middle. In
general, though, software "engineers" have to learn how to produce
software that is useful for humans, as natural and intuitive as
possible. (We have a long way to go!)
Clark
WA3JPG
|