I dont trust either M$ or IBM or Apple or *N*X... it's all hype right now...
This article is just a nicely printed/written version of the MS/*N*X/MAC flamewars we all enjoy. So whatever... I'll just wait for SP1 (2.0 or "Leopard" or whatever the next cut is) and see what is really required.
Hell No - I'll Never Go - One DOT Oh Hell No - I'll Never Go - One DOT Oh Hell No - I'll Never Go - One DOT Oh ...
Why dont they just break out the dang "standard". Hello? Arch/Design Priniciples? - Layered the Standard?
1. ODF 1.0 - The simple basic 1.0 way of doing things. Not alot of bells and whistle but we can share hte basic structure of letters, words, sentences, paragraphs, images... etc
2. ODF 1.0+ - The not-simple bloatware feature-mad vendor-locked solution. You know the useless paperclip. Macros that do simple things with small amounts of data well, but choke when you actually want to leverage the repetition of doing the macro on large amounts of data.
#2 could be sold as "Advanced ODF" or "WOW ODF" or "ODF for the clinically insane" #1 could be sold as "ODF Foundation" or "ODF when you want to actually get something accomplished"
Nah, I think they just can't explain it clearly... they have problems - they are confusing - that is why they are hard to explain and nail down to design to.
I work in a custom dev environment - we dont try to sell generalize software packages so we have direct access to our user group (although scattered across 10 countries and languages) so my comment comes from that angle.
For all the effort we spend on designing the solution, I still believe we should spend the same (or more) and designing the problem(s) outside of software. All of us - users AND developers.
Software just cannot be expected to provide a boundless solution. Too many states and we arrive at an impossible-to-test solution. So then it is a crapshoot as far as user experience... the wrong combination is out there and unknowable and a user will find it and your product's reputation will suffer. These are accepted sw quality fundamentals, all but the simplest software is basically untestable for all of its possibilities.
But through detailed working through the problem you are also simultaneously deriving a contract for use and if the user group isnt clued in on the contract then anything might be a problem and our products' reputations will suffer.
You buy a car and the contract is it will drive - on the road - not fly - not bake bread - not make new cars - not play Beethoven's ninth - just drive.
Although...
Computers ARE freaky I still remember starting my dad's apple II plus when I was like 5 and freaking out "wtf is this?!?!?". User's feel powerless... why? how we can we not make them feel powerless? I think that point is basically made in the article... just too much of that Fox whiney-ness to it. Waaah Waaah make it work Waah Waah. is becoming a substitute for mature adult discourse and insightful criticism I guess...
Slashdot Mirror
I dont trust either M$ or IBM or Apple or *N*X ... it's all hype right now ...
This article is just a nicely printed/written version of the MS/*N*X/MAC flamewars we all enjoy. So whatever ... I'll just wait for SP1 (2.0 or "Leopard" or whatever the next cut is) and see what is really required.
...
Hell No - I'll Never Go - One DOT Oh
Hell No - I'll Never Go - One DOT Oh
Hell No - I'll Never Go - One DOT Oh
Similar to an above comment.
... etc
Why dont they just break out the dang "standard". Hello? Arch/Design Priniciples? - Layered the Standard?
1. ODF 1.0 - The simple basic 1.0 way of doing things. Not alot of bells and whistle but we can share hte basic structure of letters, words, sentences, paragraphs, images
2. ODF 1.0+ - The not-simple bloatware feature-mad vendor-locked solution. You know the useless paperclip. Macros that do simple things with small amounts of data well, but choke when you actually want to leverage the repetition of doing the macro on large amounts of data.
#2 could be sold as "Advanced ODF" or "WOW ODF" or "ODF for the clinically insane"
#1 could be sold as "ODF Foundation" or "ODF when you want to actually get something accomplished"
Nah, I think they just can't explain it clearly ... they have problems - they are confusing - that is why they are hard to explain and nail down to design to.
I work in a custom dev environment - we dont try to sell generalize software packages so we have direct access to our user group (although scattered across 10 countries and languages) so my comment comes from that angle.
For all the effort we spend on designing the solution, I still believe we should spend the same (or more) and designing the problem(s) outside of software. All of us - users AND developers.
Software just cannot be expected to provide a boundless solution. Too many states and we arrive at an impossible-to-test solution. So then it is a crapshoot as far as user experience ... the wrong combination is out there and unknowable and a user will find it and your product's reputation will suffer. These are accepted sw quality fundamentals, all but the simplest software is basically untestable for all of its possibilities.
But through detailed working through the problem you are also simultaneously deriving a contract for use and if the user group isnt clued in on the contract then anything might be a problem and our products' reputations will suffer.
You buy a car and the contract is it will drive - on the road - not fly - not bake bread - not make new cars - not play Beethoven's ninth - just drive.
Although ...
Computers ARE freaky I still remember starting my dad's apple II plus when I was like 5 and freaking out "wtf is this?!?!?". User's feel powerless ... why? how we can we not make them feel powerless? I think that point is basically made in the article ... just too much of that Fox whiney-ness to it. Waaah Waaah make it work Waah Waah. is becoming a substitute for mature adult discourse and insightful criticism I guess ...