Want to make usable software? Start from the human user perspective. Ask what the person does, not what the software does. Adapt the software to the (generalized) user/person. Sounds simple but it is so rarely done especially with non-commercial, custom proprietary and open source software. Usually it's done exactly backwards with software function first and usability bolted or cobbled on at the end, if at all.
Ask the kinds of questions about software that most developers dismiss as "stupid:" What is it? Who uses it and how? Why?
I have been quite surprised to find that these questions had never been previously asked and answered for a lot of the (paid) projects I've been involved with. "It's obvious" isn't an answer - obvious to you is not enough. If I could get one usability concept through developers' heads, it would be that the software you're writing is not about you.
Unfortunately, such suggestions are often met with the reaction that designers are idiots and nobody cares what some Photoshop moron thinks anyway. Hence the reluctance of designers to get involved in the first place, especially with volunteer projects. I would love to contribute to certain open source projects if I thought my contributions would be welcomed.
It's not really a question of spam at all, it's a question of business ethics.
Imagine this happened in 1978, not 2008, and your competitor snail-mailed you (read: your employer) his client address list. Would it be ethical for you to contact these accidentally-obtained leads and try to persuade them to switch their business?
At the risk of being modded into oblivion, I think the answer is yes, up to a point. Your competitor made an unforced error. You did not go hunting or hacking for this information. As long as the solicitation is mindful of the way in which the addresses were obtained, and presents a genuine choice for the customer (and is not followed by repeated unending annoyance), go ahead and pitch your offer.
It's just an offer, after all. Customers can choose to accept or reject it. Some might even be glad to hear from the competition.
Apple was telling them that customer-hostile DRM that took away obvious and visible consumer rights wouldn't work, they were telling them that the bottom would fall out of the CD business, and they were offering Apple's services as a customer-friendly alternative to some of the loser businesses the record industry was trying at the time...
What most distinguishes Apple from Microsoft is Apple's willingness, and ability, to sacrifice portions of a market in order to gain elsewhere.
Microsoft has pursued being all things to all computer users, with increasingly disastrous results. They end up being only a lame little bit to a lot of people. Apple has, for years, aggressively pursued the higher-end user niche, to whom they've become virtual demigods.
This has allowed Apple to be nimble and modern while Microsoft lags behind, tied to its legacy. Linux developers could learn a whole lot from this.
I expect you're right that it's old, but in my experience it's not nearly common enough.
I've spent the last few years battling against the bad proprietary software my company was developing and although I largely won in the end it was difficult, expensive and entirely avoidable. Our inhouse developers are super-experienced and extremely well-paid. They're also totally incapable of producing usable software on their own because they're so wrapped up in the trees they can't even conceive of the forest.
A request to all the hotshot developers out there reading this: The next time some colleague asks you what your software is, what it does, why we have to use this unwieldy default-dot-net interface of dull gray boxes size-optimized for your monitor, don't assume that these kinds of questions are only asked by stupid idiots who should be forced to use whatever you produce or be replaced by a quieter breed of stupid idiots.
Sounds extreme? I wish it was. I'd have lunch money for life if I had ten bucks for every time I heard a developer say "I don't care about the users."
Outside opinions can be very useful, if applied with the attitude of the parent poster. Don't let your own brilliance dismiss what could potentially be your biggest competitive advantage.
All? Even those who can't afford some significant annual fee for the SDK?
Yes. All. Why not?
Let's say Apple does charge a big annual fee for the SDK, even though there's no evidence they will (or won't) at this point. That means that fewer entities will buy it, but those who do will have to pay a lot and will be looking to hire developers and/or buy apps in order to make the investment worthwhile.
Or if the SDK is free/cheap then apps can be sold directly to users.
So accomplished developers have the opportunity to win either way. The folks who put all that time and effort into the hacks are going to be in a position to reap the rewards for their initiative, if that's what they choose to do.
Apple's not fighting their users, they're protecting them, from their perspective.
The jailbreaks are dependent on vulnerabilities which really can't be allowed to remain, for the security of the entire userbase. When the SDK is released all the developers who've already made apps will have a big head start and the good ones will even have an opportunity to get paid for their hard work if they choose.
Should be unnecessary to point this out on/. but a hack is, well, a hack. Isn't that the fun of it?
Oh, yeah... the ownership of an iPhone is the equivalent of wearing a shirt that says "SUCKER" in big letters. Have fun with your huge phone bills and a defective by design device! ^^
I understand where this is coming from, because the iPhone is a premium device and not everyone can afford one and/or understand why some others want it.
I have an iPhone and it costs me about $20 more/month than my previous Verizon crap-phone and I don't find it expensive. Instead, it's a much better value -- cheaper, for what I get out of it -- because it provides features and capabilities I never had before in one device, or at all in any device when it comes to usability and browsing the web. I have chosen to pay AT&T for service, exactly like I chose previously to pay Verizon, and am free to choose any other provider now or in the future if they offer me something (hardware, software, services) I want. Competition benefits the customer.
Does that make me a "SUCKER"? Nope. Just an informed consumer who realizes that the cellphone/smartphone market is a big one with plenty of room for everybody.
All right, we get it. You're just far superior to anyone who would stand in line for something as crass as a (gasp!) commercially-available product.
If only we could all be so refined and intelligent as you, the world would be a much better place. Ah, but then you wouldn't have the pleasure of publicly reminding the commoners of how far beneath you they all are, now would you?
There is a "No Non-Geeks Allowed" mentality to be sure, but women who get past it have a lot of additional obstacles to overcome. Read some of the AC comments on this thread if you don't believe me.
My current IT job will probably be my last. I'm tired of battling all these tinpot dictators who use their technical knowledge to carve out little fiefdoms just to make themselves feel important.
Good software is all about the end users. Bad software is only about the guy who programmed it.
As a woman in IT, I agree with your position on equality. It's difficult and discriminatory enough without the stigma of special treatment or double standards being hung over my head.
I'm not on call 24/7 because I chose a job that doesn't require it. If I had I would either put up with it or quit for something I liked better.
It's not just IT people who have tough time requirements, btw - where I work, many on the business side have to endure punishing travel schedules. They tend to be younger, single men just like the 3am server-crisis guys.
That said, there's a lot I wish I could change about the "No Girlz Allowed" clubhouse mentality of the IT profession but creating more resentment towards women due to special treatment isn't the way to do that.
Slashdot Mirror
Want to make usable software? Start from the human user perspective. Ask what the person does, not what the software does. Adapt the software to the (generalized) user/person. Sounds simple but it is so rarely done especially with non-commercial, custom proprietary and open source software. Usually it's done exactly backwards with software function first and usability bolted or cobbled on at the end, if at all.
Ask the kinds of questions about software that most developers dismiss as "stupid:" What is it? Who uses it and how? Why?
I have been quite surprised to find that these questions had never been previously asked and answered for a lot of the (paid) projects I've been involved with. "It's obvious" isn't an answer - obvious to you is not enough. If I could get one usability concept through developers' heads, it would be that the software you're writing is not about you.
Unfortunately, such suggestions are often met with the reaction that designers are idiots and nobody cares what some Photoshop moron thinks anyway. Hence the reluctance of designers to get involved in the first place, especially with volunteer projects. I would love to contribute to certain open source projects if I thought my contributions would be welcomed.
It's not really a question of spam at all, it's a question of business ethics.
Imagine this happened in 1978, not 2008, and your competitor snail-mailed you (read: your employer) his client address list. Would it be ethical for you to contact these accidentally-obtained leads and try to persuade them to switch their business?
At the risk of being modded into oblivion, I think the answer is yes, up to a point. Your competitor made an unforced error. You did not go hunting or hacking for this information. As long as the solicitation is mindful of the way in which the addresses were obtained, and presents a genuine choice for the customer (and is not followed by repeated unending annoyance), go ahead and pitch your offer.
It's just an offer, after all. Customers can choose to accept or reject it. Some might even be glad to hear from the competition.
I sat in an Aeron chair for about 4 years before getting the Steelcase Leap. Steelcase is the winner, no competition. Worth every penny.
What most distinguishes Apple from Microsoft is Apple's willingness, and ability, to sacrifice portions of a market in order to gain elsewhere.
Microsoft has pursued being all things to all computer users, with increasingly disastrous results. They end up being only a lame little bit to a lot of people. Apple has, for years, aggressively pursued the higher-end user niche, to whom they've become virtual demigods.
This has allowed Apple to be nimble and modern while Microsoft lags behind, tied to its legacy. Linux developers could learn a whole lot from this.
I expect you're right that it's old, but in my experience it's not nearly common enough.
I've spent the last few years battling against the bad proprietary software my company was developing and although I largely won in the end it was difficult, expensive and entirely avoidable. Our inhouse developers are super-experienced and extremely well-paid. They're also totally incapable of producing usable software on their own because they're so wrapped up in the trees they can't even conceive of the forest.
A request to all the hotshot developers out there reading this: The next time some colleague asks you what your software is, what it does, why we have to use this unwieldy default-dot-net interface of dull gray boxes size-optimized for your monitor, don't assume that these kinds of questions are only asked by stupid idiots who should be forced to use whatever you produce or be replaced by a quieter breed of stupid idiots.
Sounds extreme? I wish it was. I'd have lunch money for life if I had ten bucks for every time I heard a developer say "I don't care about the users."
Outside opinions can be very useful, if applied with the attitude of the parent poster. Don't let your own brilliance dismiss what could potentially be your biggest competitive advantage.
Yes. All. Why not?
Let's say Apple does charge a big annual fee for the SDK, even though there's no evidence they will (or won't) at this point. That means that fewer entities will buy it, but those who do will have to pay a lot and will be looking to hire developers and/or buy apps in order to make the investment worthwhile.
Or if the SDK is free/cheap then apps can be sold directly to users.
So accomplished developers have the opportunity to win either way. The folks who put all that time and effort into the hacks are going to be in a position to reap the rewards for their initiative, if that's what they choose to do.
Apple's not fighting their users, they're protecting them, from their perspective.
The jailbreaks are dependent on vulnerabilities which really can't be allowed to remain, for the security of the entire userbase. When the SDK is released all the developers who've already made apps will have a big head start and the good ones will even have an opportunity to get paid for their hard work if they choose.
Should be unnecessary to point this out on /. but a hack is, well, a hack. Isn't that the fun of it?
I understand where this is coming from, because the iPhone is a premium device and not everyone can afford one and/or understand why some others want it.
I have an iPhone and it costs me about $20 more/month than my previous Verizon crap-phone and I don't find it expensive. Instead, it's a much better value -- cheaper, for what I get out of it -- because it provides features and capabilities I never had before in one device, or at all in any device when it comes to usability and browsing the web. I have chosen to pay AT&T for service, exactly like I chose previously to pay Verizon, and am free to choose any other provider now or in the future if they offer me something (hardware, software, services) I want. Competition benefits the customer.
Does that make me a "SUCKER"? Nope. Just an informed consumer who realizes that the cellphone/smartphone market is a big one with plenty of room for everybody.
If only we could all be so refined and intelligent as you, the world would be a much better place. Ah, but then you wouldn't have the pleasure of publicly reminding the commoners of how far beneath you they all are, now would you?
There is a "No Non-Geeks Allowed" mentality to be sure, but women who get past it have a lot of additional obstacles to overcome. Read some of the AC comments on this thread if you don't believe me.
My current IT job will probably be my last. I'm tired of battling all these tinpot dictators who use their technical knowledge to carve out little fiefdoms just to make themselves feel important.
Good software is all about the end users. Bad software is only about the guy who programmed it.
As a woman in IT, I agree with your position on equality. It's difficult and discriminatory enough without the stigma of special treatment or double standards being hung over my head.
I'm not on call 24/7 because I chose a job that doesn't require it. If I had I would either put up with it or quit for something I liked better.
It's not just IT people who have tough time requirements, btw - where I work, many on the business side have to endure punishing travel schedules. They tend to be younger, single men just like the 3am server-crisis guys.
That said, there's a lot I wish I could change about the "No Girlz Allowed" clubhouse mentality of the IT profession but creating more resentment towards women due to special treatment isn't the way to do that.