Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: How Do You Explain 'Don't Improve My Software Syndrome' Or DIMSS?
dryriver writes: I am someone who likes to post improvement suggestions for different software tools I use on the internet. If I see a function in a software that doesn't work well for me or could work better for everyone else, I immediately post suggestions as to how that function could be improved and made to work better for everybody. A striking phenomenon I have come across in posting such suggestions is the sheer number of "why would you want that at all" or "nobody needs that" or "the software is fine as it is" type responses from software users. What is particularly puzzling is that its not the developers of the software rejecting the suggestions -- its users of the software that often react sourly to improvement suggestions that could, if implemented well, benefit a lot of people using the software in question. I have observed this happening online for years even for really good software feature/function improvement ideas that actually wound up being implemented. My question is -- what causes this behavior of software users on the internet? Why would a software user see a suggestion that would very likely benefit many other users of the software and object loudly to that suggestion, or even pretend that "the suggestion is a bad one?"
Also you have interface complexity. Adding these features requires some way to use the features, possibly including configuration options, menu items, hotkeys and so on. Prior to the Ribbon, Microsoft tried to fix this in Word by hiding all the menu items you had not used yet, so you'd never know those features were there to be used. My boss constantly asks me to remove menu items and "simplify" but he never has any answers on where he thinks users should go to access those features if they're no longer in the menu. Relevant Dilbert.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Also scope creep in projects is always a risk. It isn't about not liking the idea but not adding into that particular product. Mostly because that one more feature can break a lot and cause more rework than a new product.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I don't know if you've been keeping an eye on things, but generally "improvements" aren't.
Examples:
There is a reason why User Experience (UX) people are so hated - because they take a nice, big, fat dump on existing users to improve things the way that THEY want, and, again, tough shit if you liked it the other way, and tough shit if it breaks the software for many users, or even if it breaks the machine. It's not unlike an interior decorator trying to make a "statement" in many cases. Not unlike one of those shows where they have someone come in and "redecorate" the house and it turns out to be a total nightmare. This is not helped by the fact that with many situations, updates are now FORCED, so you can't throw the interior decorator out. In many cases, companies and organizations act as if you don't own the computer (and in many cases, the companies want to own the computer you paid for, and they treat the software like they do in fact own the machine). And even if you do, they usually manage to cripple you in some way (usually compatibility) until you're forced to capitulate - and things are usually even worse by then.
Note, however, that this does NOT necessarily just apply to the UI, in case I've overemphasized that - it works with any and every aspect of the software that can be changed. In short, in
And so they have even less excuse for their mangling of the terminology, and definitely should be smiled at, nodded to, and ultimately, ignored other than when they have some kind of arbitrary coercive power over you, in which case, do it in your head anyway.
If you walk up to a nuclear engineer with your 140 IQ and ask him to "turn up the atumz", he should probably just call security and have your ass thrown out on the street.
Seriously. If you don't know even the basics of an industry's terminology -- it's time to leave off trying to involve yourself until you get that handled. If you do.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I see this behavior surprisingly often as well. Any explanation I offered would just be conjecture, I'm afraid. I have some guesses about why people do this, but they're just guesses. I think it would make for an interesting psychology study.
Anyway, I'm mainly posting here to offset the toxic comments I see in response to your question. I, too, have been there. I've been attacked by onlookers for making suggestions, with the naysayers backing off only when the project leads decided that my suggestions were good ones. I've watched other people get attacked similarly, sometimes when I was a newcomer, and sometimes when I was the developer. It doesn't seem to matter if you're making suggestions for someone else to implement or offering to do the work yourself; some people seem just as likely to sling mud at you either way.
The internet has no shortage of obstructionist personalities, and the communities that gather around software projects are no exception. It makes me sad every time I see it, because to me, it is the antithesis of open software development. When it happens, everybody loses.
The only advice I can think of right now is to accept constructive criticism of your ideas, but also don't assume that your ideas suck just because some internet troll says so. A lot of them are wrong.
This right here.
There have been tons of applications that I have loved that had reached a perfect balance of usability and performance. Then the dev takes the development beyond useful with shit like skins or Adding this or that and it begins a downward spiral. Instead of calling the work 'good' and doing something new they latched onto their one app as cash cow to start milking their existing customers for upgrades.
Winamp was a prime example of this. When it came out it worked, it had a minimal footprint and was lightweight. Same for the image utility Acdsee, and believe it or not photoshop.
Winamp and acdsee are apps I kept in a personal library to re-install after building a new machine because I detested the complexity and garbage the newer versions became. Photoshop used to come on 7 floppy disks and did everything I use Krita for today. Although Krita is far more capable today than Photoshop of the late 90's, it's still lightweight and doesn't insist on hooking into every bloody thing on your computer and calling home to authenticate.
Add to this model the fact that now acdsee and photoshop requires a 'subscription' to operate is why I am wary of new versions.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
You're going to change how the software interacts with the user because you got a nifty tool kit upgrade? Because you went from Programing Language Not Currently in Vogue to Programing Language De Jour? You think the software should work on a desktop bolted to a desk at a shipping department just like it works on your child's IPAD? The latest iteration of homo-sapiens isn't fawning over the fully functioning design? You should get out of programming and move into a more useful career: Ocean water garbage removal. Sure, it might seem like a good idea for the UI to be changed so that some feature can better fit in to the latest UI concept, or even be cool to the latest crop of budding consumers just entering college, but changing how something works is a huge deal - not for you programmers, but for the millions of people that actually use the software to get things done.
Software is a tool, not an art project to stick in your effing portfolio. First off, UI design must be functional and then elegant. It matters not one wit if the UI is pretty or even if it wins awards for its looks if the thing doesn't effectively and efficiently do the damn job its supposed to do. Changing the UI design, especially deleting functions or moving them around is equivalent to breaking the software. It doesn't work like it did yesterday and NOW it is neither effective nor efficient. Now it requires learning, and then re-learning, and if used often will require UNLEARNING the old way -- something humans don't really do well at all. If you can't make the changes you need to the code to both improve the underlying performance, add a feature, appeal to the "youts of 'murica", and still keep the old stuff where it was and working as it was, then get out of programming. Just quit. Save me the time and aggravation of figuring out what is going through that two cell based life form you call a brain while I have a multi-million dollar project idling because the people working on it can't figure out where those vital features are now located or worse deprecated, a fancy word for too fucking lazy to keep a feature working.
And don't get me started on the "what we changed in the latest upgrade" document. I get better change logs in World of Warcraft patches than any other piece of recently "upgraded" software. Hiring some stoner you met at the Weed Works to write "We changed stuff" and hide it in a PDF buried more effectively than landslide victims in Washington State, isn't sufficient so mitigate the change chaos. SO stop lying to yourself about how it's really okay and people will get over it. No THEY WON'T. We don't get over being blamed for the consequences of some anonymous jackass programmer's design changes. We get to SUFFER because of it. And that is NEVER going away. We remember it because you're the reason the budget was blown, the system failed, we missed a deadline because the software got upgraded. We didn't get new training because we had to spend the training budget on teaching folks how to use the upgrade instead of something that might actually get our productivity up. Yeah, change that UI, will ya? We need more stress and aggravation.
Remember when Microsoft moved the print function in office? That little bitty change was a juggernaut of wasted time and effort trying to first, figure out where this common function had be re-located, and then passing that knowledge on to people who really only want to print documents as a part of their job. That's right, printing documents was the core piece of their job and one night it got upgraded into some other part of the software. Brilliant. Now we have employees approaching retirement age who already hate computers and software trying to figure out how to print documents so that they can ship product to customers while the trucks are idling outside the office at $200/hour demurage causing the shipping department to watch their quarterly bonus vanish as they struggled to figure out how to PRINT. Yeah that was a great move. I'm sure those guys w
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons