Slashdot Mirror
The 5 Users You'd Meet in Hell
cweditor writes "The Know-It-All. The Finger-Pointer. The Whiz Kid. "Just as a zookeeper cares for his monkeys one way and his rhinos another (we kid — sort of), so too should IT tailor its responses to fit the individual styles of its end users," according to this Computerworld "rogue's gallery of users (and one angel)".
Includes advice on how to best deal with the most common types of users, without having to run screaming into the night. Expect sometime soon to also see reader feedback offering other ideas (and, oh, perhaps some disagreement with the article's)."
1) the mad bcc cya artists, who propagate more messages than the worst spammers on earth
2) all of the millions of people that don't RTFM or help screens before lifting the phone and calling tech support; yes, the manuals and help screens suck, so did your chemistry book.
3) people that experiment with key configuration settings. Go ahead, click that DHCP button.
4) the well-intentioned, yet clueless. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
5) fanboi bigots; these weak ego'd miscreants are so insecure that the mere mention of a competing technology will drive them into brutal defensive postures. Their reactions remind me of our current political upheaval
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
No, not just enlist their help with other users and throttle their access, actually listen to what they have to say and ask why they do things that don't align with policy.
7th graders (13 year olds) are the users who will be welcoming me into hell
success often occurs in private, failure in full view
The article is, unsurprisingly, written from the typical asshat IT support person point of view. The article doesn't list the user who actually does know a lot more than the clueless freshly-minted IT support guy. As opposed to the "Mr. Know-It-All" who thinks he's an engineer, there are those of us who actually are engineers who are hobbled by Mr. Know-Nothing IT guys who operate blindly. I always laugh at the IT guy who does superstitious things like closing the Explorer window and re-opening a new one so he can navigate somewhere! Or tries the exact same operation four times, thinking it will work the fourth time! Every time some idiotic security application is "pushed" onto all desktops and fucks up my ability to update development software, some IT moron asks "well what did you change?" I remember a dimwit who claimed I needed a new computer because he couldn't figure out how get an encryption certificate working in Outlook. I kid you not, I got a new computer out of it.
I was the Twentysomething Whiz Kid when I was, er, in my twenties. Then I went to grad school, and got a grasp on just how much there was left to learn. I've learned some humility, but even so, the computers at one of my jobs are so-so, and an absolute catastrophe at the other. The difference is that now I have an MSI, so I can articulate why they're a catastrophe.
What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
"The Know-It-All" It is simply mind-boggling how often a simple reboot fix seemingly unrelated problems. Besides, if you're issue is really so important that I need to come down there personally and look into it, you're probably not getting much work done anyways, so what's the harm in starting a reboot while I start walking to your desk? Worst case scenario, it doesn't help, but you haven't missed out on any productivity.
If I ask a user to reboot their computer (which, by the way, means I think it might help) and they say it's unrelated, their just prolonging the time it takes to get the problem solved, because I'm just gonna reboot it myself when I get to their desk. Why not save us both a little time and just do it now? Who knows, it might even work, and that'll save us both a lot of time.
Unpleasantries.
In the rare instance when I actually need to call support, I'll perform the steps they ask even if I've already tried them and know that they don't fix the problem. After all, they're patiently trying to help you, so the least you can do is try not to stress them out by being a pain in the ass.
This guy's the limit!
This article is fairly content-free. For all the categories, the answer seems to be "let the users bend you over backwards". Nothing useful.
The users who think their cluelessness is the fault of a "virus" in the machine.
The worst thing about these people is they all have a know-it-all friend/relation who'll came over at the weekend and install his pirate copy of Windows/Norton on the machine to "fix" it.
Now Windows won't validate and Norton, well, it's Norton...
Now the only way out is to reformat.
No sig today...
I just don't like being treated as the enemy...and a dumb enemy at that. I fully realize I don't know everything about the desktop or why windows networking can take 30+ seconds to log on (what is it doing?!). But when I drag one of them over to show them how my build which is creating 5000 files takes 100x longer when the virus scanner is operating "on access" I expect an answer better than "corporate policy".
The unix administrators I've run across certainly have their tyrants but they eventually relent in order to let me get some work done. The windows side of IT seems perfectly willing to let work stop in order to conform to policy.
t
Not sure if you're IT; but having done IT for a mere 3.5 years I have never once had what you described happen. Either the reboot instantly fixes the problem (because Windows probably did something stupid managing memory) or the problem persists in which case there is a bigger issue to be addressed. Three and a half years isn't a lot of time but my experience does not coincide with your perspective.
The olde saying goes: People who think they know everything are particularly annoying to those of us who do.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
With the growing complexity of computer systems and the growing number of issues inherent in the system (regardless of the Operating System in question), I've found that most "system administrators" just don't care to research problems thoroughly any longer. The oft stated "reboot" only serves to postpone the inevitable visit to resolve the problem in the future.
Back when I was a "Windows Guy(tm)", I visited the desk for almost every system crash that was encountered by the user community. I admit that I, too, chose the occasional reboot rebuff when I was swamped with server issues. But I made a concerted effort to visit the user, and I was usually able to isolate the problems - generally related to faulty hardware or driver configuration.
Rebooting the computer will, in fact, resolve many things. For a while. Ultimately, most problems will recur. If it is software related, it will continue until the software problem is addressed. This could be the OS, and application, a utility, a driver, etc. If the problem is hardware related, it will also continue until the problem is addressed. And, it may end up costing you more money to replace any components that the faulty unit may be attached to.
I think the problem is the story you replied to is bogus. While it made for a mildly interesting read, fortune 500 companies would call their CIO or director of IT before resorting to the generic IT helpline number.
However, a locked Active directory, and you have access to the password as a Tech support operator at your "low level" position, shows either this company was a complete failure with it's IT department, or again, bogus story. Props to my parent for calling out the good points. Wish I still had mod-points today.
If you really know more than the support guy, don't call him. If you do call him, be prepared to let him solve the problem.
I did support for a while, and periodically got users who didn't want to go through the first 10 basic steps of diagnosing the problem. They would assure me that they already tried that, and that's not the problem. 9 times out of 10, they are wrong, and some stupid thing they would swear they on their mothers grave they already tried fixed the problem.
Maybe you're that 10th guy, every single time you call. But it's unreasonable to expect the support guy to believe that, and frankly, you're probably not. Note that the other 9 guys are all just as sure they actually know what they are talking about too.
I learned the hard way that using military alphabet abbreviations over the phone just confuses most folks who aren't current/ex military or pilots. You end up having to say "A as in Alpha" instead otherwise they can't cope. It's even worse if they are a foreign national whose English language skills aren't so strong.
Of course most folks here can't deal with metric either so I shouldn't be surprised. (yes I'm an American slamming other Americans on this topic) There are a lot of things people could do to make their lives easier that they don't bother to learn. Sad but true.
I think the problem is with different definitions of "fixed" which Windows and Unix/Linux/Mainframe/etc admins have. In the Windows world "fixed" frequently means clearing up an inherent, recurring, deep-seated internal design problems of either Windows or some business app which are fundamentally unsolvable given the lack of access to the source code and even sufficient diagnostics tools to track the cause down. So rebooting "fixes" the problem in the sense that people get back to work and the thing limps along for some unpredictable amount of time again, until one of the many fundamentally unsolveable issues crops up again. Then reboot. Lather, rinse, repeat.
In the other environments "fixing" means employing a set of different diagnostic procedures, from analysing logs (which are actually useful, unlike the Windows ones), turning debugging info on, running strace etc, all the way to parsing source code, all of which procedures are very quickly focused on a specific running process or kernel module, which in turn can, in a vast majority of cases, be stopped/started/loaded/unloaded at runtime. Following which "fixing" means alteration to either the system configuration or applying appropriate patches. In some cases even writing your own.
This is because of this fundamental difference you have such a chorus of disagreement between those who come from Microsoft-only shops and those who have a much broader experience.
If you've defined your computer support positions as being responsible for being experts at every piece of software your run and to spend their time helping people with all the problems with them then sure. However the problem with that is you are likely to need a very large staff to accomplish anything, and have to pay a fair bit to get them trained in everything.
Usually IT positions seem to be more responsible for the larger picture, making sure the systems and network operate correctly. Past that, a lot starts to go to the users. This is how it is going to be if you want to have a few of people who are responsible for 20 servers and 500 desktops. If they have to spend all their time acting as trainers, they won't be able to do their real jobs. If you want them to just be systems support, you are going to have to make it the responsibility of the users to learn the software they use.
Also, depending on the environment, it may not even be realistic. I work for an engineering department at a university and as such we have a lot of specialized engineering apps. The extent that we support those apps is to make sure they are installed correctly, that they run and that in the cases where such a thing exists, we can run an example project. That's it. We aren't experts in the software and indeed there's nobody in the department who's an expert with all of it. You'd need several master's degrees and probably a few PhDs as well to have the requisite knowledge for that. So we can make sure that the installation is right, we can make sure it is getting a license, we can make sure there's nothing on the system interfering with it, but we can't help you fix your broken project.
Likewise, it is not unreasonable to ask people to read basic messages on the screen. If the computer comes up with an error like "Error, there was an error," yes it is time to call the computer people. However if it says "Printer is out of paper," you should be able to read that one and figure it out yourself. Computers often try to be helpful, and it isn't unreasonable to ask someone to know a bit about the device they are operating. Much like I am not going to chide you for not knowing how to replace a broken alternator in your car, but I do expect that you should understand that when the fuel gauge goes to E you need to put more gas in, without asking a mechanic.
First time I encountered a mouse, it was attached to a Mac. This would be back in '85-6 (so I would be 3-4 at the time) and when I was told to 'click on the little picture with the mouse,' I picked up the mouse, moved it to the point on the screen where little picture was, and pressed the button. Whenever I hear these tech support stories, I think back to this, and remember that the only reason these jokes aren't about me is that I've been using computers a lot longer than the people in the stories.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
> Press the left mouse button and release it.
Except they'll hold the button down too long and end up dragging and fail to click. They won't retry or even realise it didn't work, but simply get confused by the next instruction.
And as an even olde-er saying goes: "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."
....they don't have the sort of brain processes that allow a person to systematize knowledge about how one part of one thing works to understand how other parts or other things work, so memorizing instructions is all they can do. In other words, they're just not very bright.I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
The term you're looking for is "learned helplessness." They have either been told so many times, or have told themselves so many times, that they CAN'T do something that these "false facts" become their reality. Since trying to go beyond your limits requires an emotional risk (i.e. "What if I fail? I'll look foolish....") people who learn to be helpless tend to stay that way unless they get help breaking out of it or they accidentally do the thing the "know" they can't and get the idea that they actually can. (Wow, that was one tortured sentence...)
Who did what now?
You joke, but pretty much anyone who has ever done usability testing on modern computer systems has run into difficulty with right and left mouse buttons. It is the single, number one, most common usability problem. The worst are users (about 5%) who always click both buttons at the same time, usually resulting in a left click, but occasionally (and apparently randomly to them) their other finger wins the race and they right click. The problem is not even solely that of novice users. When you use software to record the screen as people work, you see the problem for advanced users, most of whom do not even notice. I saw this once for one of the top security architects for one of the biggest tier 1 ISPs in the US, and he was a really bright guy.
Apple has largely solved this problem with two major things. First, all systems ship in single button configuration, so developers almost never require right-clicking for any action. (aside from one pro graphics company and a few bad ports of Windows/Linux apps). This means everything accessed by right-clicking is a secondary way to get to that function and can be used for quick shortcuts. The second thing they did was the invention of the mighty mouse. It isn't perfect and I don't use one myself, but they change a mouse from single button to multi-button in software, so different users of the same hardware can have either a simple mouse or an advanced mouse. This is the best thing ever for public machines, family computers, and other shared systems.
I suppose having actual experience with formal, scientific testing in this area is why all the idiotic comments about 1 button mice and ridicule of people who have problems is so annoying to me.
To be fair, this often grips some technical support people. I'm fairly technical, and if I go to tech support I've usually tried the first two or three rounds of things they're going to suggest. I figure I'm just saving us both time if I can explain what I've done already to try and reduce the complexity a bit. If they want me to repeat something I've done just a bit differently, I'm happy to do it.
However, often they don't even want to hear what I've done. They are reading off of scripts and have no idea how to actually fix the problem. They are in the same voodoo category, and very rarely end up actually helping. A shame, actually, because they either seem unable or (worse) unwilling to learn what they're trying to support. It wastes everyones time.
I had the same understanding with the science teacher. I could listen to stuff on Monday and Tuesday and sleep the rest of the week(except for the tests on Friday which I slept after completing).
It was easy for me to pick things up the way he taught. The teacher made all the relevant points by Tuesday and spent the rest of the week making sure the students understood. Unfortunately this means the rest of us were held to a class "average" of sorts.
As I understand things have gotten worse under the No Child Left Behind act(my mother's a teacher.) She refers to it as "No child gets ahead." Almost everything is taught by being focused on test results. The attitude from administrators is now, "Who cares if they'll learn anything, just make sure they pass the tests." Funding is everything for the schools, so that's what matters the most now, tests.
....they don't have the sort of brain processes that allow a person to systematize knowledge about how one part of one thing works to understand how other parts or other things work, so memorizing instructions is all they can do. In other words, they're just not very bright. I generally agree but I think "brightness" is a composite of several mental feats or traits. Just being enthusiastic about a task or subject can sometimes appear as brightness. Just being able to memorize a metric butt-load of dry facts can sometimes appear as brightness. The above trait is the ability to extrapolate across kinds of information, and/or the ability to generalize various facts by their common aspects, and these are depressingly rare abilities. Some people really do have moments where nothing is going on, thoughtwise; others seem to have something clicking at all times. Having a little of all of these traits is often equated with a lump really bright label.[
I think that teachers are already required to take an oath using that phrase. However, the phrase immediately following is, "and will do everything in my power to suppress such students."
Redundancy is good And also good.
Again, your points would be valid if you didn't invent them. You really should hop on a Mac before you start criticizing them - it will make you seem like you know what you are talking about.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
It is interesting how many users would agree with the GP's sentiments that the users aren't very bright with the only data point being their lack of interest in learning about computers. Yet those same people may be very offended by similar claims made about people who lack interest in learning about social situations. This seems true even looking past the issue that some social aptitude seems to be biologically constrained (hence the social impairments in persons with the autism spectrum disorders).
Every post I make begins with the assumption P=~P.