Slashdot Mirror
Are End Users to Blame for OS Flaws?
tomsHH writes to mention OSWeekly author Brandon Watts claims that really it is end users who should be blamed for many OS flaws. "Believe it or not, as users, we also have a large role to play in the evolution of an operating system. We use what's been created, and this means that we're the best people to turn to for judging what works and what doesn't. Passionate communities that are supportive aid development, and when users join their efforts to make their voices heard, this benefits everyone. Have you ever thought that if you wanted something to be improved, then maybe you should just speak up and offer a solution instead of quietly or publicly venting without offering any input? Nothing changes by staying the same. Companies are listening, and as taboo as it may seem, most of them want to make their users happy, so if you shout loud enough, you're bound to be heard. If you need proof of this, then just look at how Linux has progressed in its development."
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: yes, but the OS should be robust enough to deal with clumsy endusers.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Nope
No! Every mass market product needs to be made easy enough for most of the population to use. Blaming end users for not being IT majors is just ridiculous. If you needed an IT education to be able to use computers then they would still cost in the $10,00o's.
Blaming the end users is simply a cop out.
I found that to be an odd little opinion piece. It has something of the "chicken/egg" to it what with blaming users for not speaking up stridently enough... about the problems they have with the OS that... they didn't speak up stridently enough about?
I think that most OSes receive PLENTY of feedback, strident and otherwise about perceived flaws and issues.
This article is basically content free.
This article is nothing but flamebait intended to garnish click-through revenue regardless of whether you click on that Dice banner ad.
Most users don't know what the alternatives are. Though they know is that the bloated POS that they're using sucks, but they don't have the words or expertise to convey exactly how it sucks. I think what most users want is an OS that's fast, easy, works every time, and isn't ugly to look at.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Linux users have another option not mentioned that isn't available to Windows or Mac-OS users... they can quietly/publicly vent, and then write a patch to fix the problem.
Microsoft doesn't give a shit about making you or I happy. They care about corporate customers with support contracts and umpteen-hojillion seats.
Even if you are heard, however, you're likely to be ignored. It's only when hundreds or thousands of voices in chorus ask for the same thing that any major developer gives a damn.
This is an exceptionally ignorant thing to say, unless we're speaking exclusively about Open Source or Free Software or something, and we are not. Linux is driven by two groups; one is the major companies which cater to paying customers. If you have purchased a large support contract, they care about you. Otherwise not. The other group is the hobbyists. They want to implement first those things which they think would be cool, second those things which they think are necessary (these may be swapped depending on sensibilities) and third any other feature they think is cool, or would teach them something, or which would get them some props. This last can be the most powerful motivator but usually the competent are not the greatest seekers of glory.
Compare this to a commercial corporation that only cares if you are important to the bottom line, and you will see how lame the comparison is.
Let me tell you what companies actually care about: Money. No one cares if you say that you want the product to do X, unless lots of other people said it. But if a product comes out that does what you want and you buy it, well, that sort of thing tends to be noticed. People will then emulate that product, trying to give you what you want.
Vote with your dollars. End of story, unless it's a free-as-in-beer Linux, and then you're either stroking someone's ego or helping their bottom line by growing their installed base and making their distribution look more desirable to corporate customers. If it's free-as-in-beer, vote with your feet, same concept. By all means tell people what you want, but don't expect to get it because unless everyone else wants it, you're probably not going to get it - again, if it's commercial.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
A piece of industrial Sony software I work with every day is full of grammar problems.
"Are you sure to delete?"
Every time there's a Sony tech in the room I complain. In four years and several versions nothing's changed.
Are end users to blame? Exactly how am I supposed to change an error message?
-- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
I thought the same thing, a flaw is a bug. A bad implementation can be technically flawless.
;)
Bzzzt. Wrong, and this is the typically techy approach to OSes. An OS with no bugs is not necessarily flawless. Flaw can be other things than bugs - flawed usability (e.g. having to go through a menu, 2 sub menus and an option page just to get to a very frequently used search, or having a modern OS that only supports 320x200 on the display).
Flaws are everywhere, in code, but also in DESIGN. And, of course, the design ones are often the hardest to fix, especially if you look at a list of flaws with only techy eyes
Try NetBSD... safe,straightforward,useful.
What a ridiculous little ad-filled blurb this is. This is a "column"? My mother could have written a more insightful technology column, and she doesn't even use computers.
More infuriating is his use of the term "OS". What exactly are these user level features you are adding to your "OS"? Oh, right, things like internet browsers. Of course.
This reads like it was written by grade school student.
This wouldn't even pass as an insightful technical column on CNN. What is it doing here?
This is a stupid argument.
The users don't work collectively. Nor can we do anything except complain about the software flaws, which is a method that manifests itself by blaming the developers.
So the argument seems to be we shouldn't blame the developers. We should blame ourselves for not blaming the developers.
As long as end users are receiving messages like this this blaming the end user is still a bit of a stretch. What will really make a difference is when competition returns in full force to the operating system market. It took over a decade of the Big 3 auto makers making the automotive equivalent of a turd before the Japanese auto makers began to see large market gains, and the drivers didn't need to become mechanics in order to make that happen.
Suggesting that the end user, the same people that answer "Word" when you ask them where they saved their file, could offer meaningful programming suggestions isn't very practical. End users aren't programmers and beyond feature requests or UI suggestions I can't really see them offering much. I apologize to those that like more in depth car analogies. It's been a long day and I just couldn't bring myself to try harder.
load "$",8,1
I do resist being held responsible for the flaws in Windows. Windows was not made according to user specs. It's made according to industry specs. And no, not the industry that wants to use it. The various small and (more) large conglomerations that want their "rights" protected, and of course MS that wants its interests protected. Or could anyone tell me why a user of the product would want DRM, or would want to have the parts of the system so intermingled that you can't replace or remove the parts you do not want or you want from a third party?
In OSS, the user has actually a voice and more often than not, it gets heeded. Especially since some OSS developers open themselves to funding from their users. Of course, many OSS projects first and foremost follow that their inventor had in mind. That's a given. Funny enough, it often also matches the needs of their users. And many, larger, projects implement what their users suggest.
For those bugs, I do gladly take the blame. But certainly not for software that was made with completely different needs in mind than mine, or that of any other user.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"It just works"
"Easiest version ever"
"Simple as 1, 2, 3"
"Point and click"
"Set up for wireless in minutes!"
Seems to me that the companies are to blame for the gap between what the marketing guys say and the reality, not the users.
Last time I checked, nobody told me my car could withstand 60 mph head on with a bridge embankment so I don't treat it that way.
Likewise, last time I checked Microsoft and Apple could give two shits about what the knowledgeable geeks had to say about it and went for the dumb grandma dumb enough to pay full retail for the box at WalMart.
If it's an OS, people ARE told to treat it that way and it doesn't always work out so well.
So fire your marketing department, or make a better OS, or shut the fuck up cuz it sure as hell is not the users fault.
Only the FreeOS guys get anywhere close, "oh just [execute obscure and difficult to find script on some oddly formatted config files here] and it will work". With them, at least I know what the tasks are.
Have you ever thought that if you wanted something to be improved, then maybe you should just speak up and offer a solution instead of quietly or publicly venting without offering any input?
There's three problems with this concept:
The first is that you're ignoring 20+ years of technically competent people telling non-technical people that they are morons for not being able to understand the systems, this has lead to a lot of people assuming that they are immediately wrong.
The second is that often end users have been making awesome suggestions for decades, but developers don't understand or don't care to understand what the users are saying.
The third problem is that computer systems are often so complex that users don't truly understand what they want, just what they don't want. It can be exceptionally hard to clearly and definitively make a technical suggestion when you don't understand the technical problem space that you're dealing with. They need people who can interpret what they want to developers. Every other industry has them, why not ours?
Companies are listening, and as taboo as it may seem, most of them want to make their users happy, so if you shout loud enough, you're bound to be heard.
Companies are starting to think that it might be a good idea that maybe they should listen to someone that they consider might be a user, or perhaps that that they are listening but, in while reality they are not. Most of them don't even understand the difference between Business Process Requirements and User Requirements.
If you need proof of this, then just look at how Linux has progressed in its development.
Bad example. Until very recently, most nix distributions couldn't give a flying hoot about the end users experience. Can't you remember the 'in crowd' jokes that went along the lines of "Linux is very user friendly, it's just picky on who it's friends are"? Really, caring about non-technical users is extremely new in *nix care factor, and it's only there because they need non-technical users to get general acceptance in the home market.
For software developers, perhaps you could develop an attractive solution, and for users, maybe you could put forth more of an effort to speak up and become involved with this tool that you use everyday so that you can make it better now and for the future.
There is only one way for that to work, software developers have to bother to listen to them in constructive ways and in general the way that software developers listen to customers at the moment is very, very poor.
I've been a Usability Specialist for a few years now and before that I spent a lot of time in Customer Support. Customers have been complaining for years, upon years, upon years. The real fault lies at the heart of the problem, the people who make software don't listen to their users - for whatever reasons.