I've developed lots of products, and any shortcomings the products had were the result of a lack of knowledge, not a surplus of it.
Either we failed to think through a certain use case, or there was a different demographic than we expected, or (most commonly) we failed to push a reviewer's hot buttons through lack of some feature or another.
Neophytes will tell you they want it simple, but they don't know how to design a product that will do what they want. That's why they're neophytes and not product designers.
I find these type of 'we need people who don't know what's impossible' comments to be a form of anti-intellectualism.
The previous machine, the Breathalyzer, went out of use when it was proven (by defense attorneys) that it was susceptible to RFI.
The "new" machine, the Intoxilyzer5000 (and this was 25 years ago) was microprocessor based. It had an
RFI detection circuit which was supposed to invalidate results if RFI was present.
Other known issues are burping and chewing tobacco.
Trouble is, the RFI detector was a comparator driving a login input. Without the software, you can't prove the box's performance from a white box perspective.
That's trouble when you're relying on a machine vs. videotaped evidence of impairment.
Slashdot Mirror
I've developed lots of products, and any shortcomings the products had were the result of a lack of knowledge, not a surplus of it.
Either we failed to think through a certain use case, or there was a different demographic than we expected, or (most commonly) we failed to push a reviewer's hot buttons through lack of some feature or another.
Neophytes will tell you they want it simple, but they don't know how to design a product that will do what they want. That's why they're neophytes and not product designers.
I find these type of 'we need people who don't know what's impossible' comments to be a form of anti-intellectualism.
The previous machine, the Breathalyzer, went out of use when it was proven (by defense attorneys) that it was susceptible to RFI. The "new" machine, the Intoxilyzer5000 (and this was 25 years ago) was microprocessor based. It had an RFI detection circuit which was supposed to invalidate results if RFI was present. Other known issues are burping and chewing tobacco. Trouble is, the RFI detector was a comparator driving a login input. Without the software, you can't prove the box's performance from a white box perspective. That's trouble when you're relying on a machine vs. videotaped evidence of impairment.