Some people (not me, you understand) might suggest that anyone who: (a) knows what they are doing in IT, and (b) has invested intellectual capital and some data in setting up services on a free web medium with no contractual obligations on either side, and (c) who has *not* backed up their site/data
Just as an aside note to my post, and for what it's worth: other studies in reading speed and comprehension identified that our brains can actually gain sense (comprehension) of what a printed sentence is saying even if we can only see the *top half* of a printed sentence; considerably less comprehension comes from only being able to see the lower half.
However, comprehension was much improved in both cases when the printed characters had serifs - i.e., as opposed to sans serif fonts.
The UK AA (Automobile Association) repeated this research post-war, and that was why UK road direction signs - maintained by the AA - were black on white or yellow, printed using serifed fonts. (I think the best was probably Times Roman.)
Serifed fonts not only enhance comprehension, but by so doing can also enhance our reading speed.
This would seem to be unpopular or "lost" knowledge nowadays, as we seem to prefer to use sans serif fonts that "look nice" - e.g., Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif. It might seem idiotic to deliberately use printed fonts that can actually reduce our comprehension and reading speed, but, if we have massively irrational brains - as recent research would seem to indicate - then it's probably no surprise really.
There is stacks of fascinating research on ergonomics, visual perception and what colour combinations cause most and least perceptual disruption and eyestrain. For example - and I could be wrong, because this is from memory:
* The No.1 greatest perceptual disruption is caused by alternating black and yellow. * The No.2 is alternating black and white. * The No.3 is alternating green and red (or green and light blue) - but it fails on people who are colour blind.
That is why you can find these contrasts being used very effectively in road markings and chevrons, and warning signs, road direction signs, and as chevrons on emergency vehicles and vehicles that are used in road maintenance.
It is a historical accident that printed material is customarily black ink on whitish paper. That happens to be the 2nd worst combination and can make our eyes ache.
The colour combinations for printed material that seem to cause least perceptual disruption and eyestrain are: * Black print on light (but not too light) green background. * Black print on a lightish grey background.
I think these "better" colour combinations have been suggested in some of the posts as "preference", but it is not really a matter of preference, it is a matter of the way human visual perception generally operates.
The "black on black" that one wag here suggested could of course be an excellent eyestrain reducer, but it would seem to defeat the object somewhat. We'd all be in the dark if we did that.;-)
This could help. Sorry, but I've not got time to sort out the HTML syntax on this crappy slashdot forum, but there you go - you get only what people can imagine...
There is a "best" (i.e., proven) practice approach to BPR (Business Process Re-engineering) for IT operations. It is includes these points:
* Good theory and defined "best" (proven) practice as a basis for rational action (there can be no rational action in the absence of theory):
(a) For the management of IT processes: recommended is the international and pseudo-public domain ITIL (Information Technology Information Library).
(a) A conventional Management of Change approach - Kotter's 8-Step Change Model.
(b) A process capability model. The internationally used and general process capability maturity model - the Humphrey's CMM (a 5-stage process Capability Maturity Model) developed in 1986 as a tool to improve US Dept. of Defense software development contract-letting, by the SEI (Software Engineering Institute). The CMM, used as a *general* model for processes has nothing much to do with its newer sister-model the CMMi - which is *specifically* all about software development processes.
* The approach includes, for example, process discovery, process definition (AS-IS and TO-BE), process modelling (preferably using a CASE tool).
* A standards-based approach:
IDEF: recommended are the well-established (1983), tried-and-tested public domain and internationally used FiPS (Federal Information Processing Standards) IDEF0 and IDEF3. IDEF was originally developed for the US Dept. of Defense, but has been used by many government depts. and commercial/non-commercial organisations worldwide - e.g., US, Europe, New Zealand, Australia, Canada.
BPMN: the BPMN standard could be used, but that is proprietary to an industry consortium - it seems to have been set up in a classic self-serving manner - i.e., to develop a new (since 2003) standard that forces the user to buy the new CASE software developed and supported by members of the consortium.
* Use of a CASE tool (highly recommended) for process modelling, as opposed to using "manual" diagramming tools such as Visio, Word diagrams or PowerPoint diagrams, for example.
There are two main CASE tools that support IDEF0/IDEF3:
1. CA's Allfusion Process Modeler BPwin): supports IDEF0, IDEF3
(This seems to have been the leading industry product since at least 1988, and is relatively cheap.
2. Telelogic's System Architect: supports IDEF0, IDEF3 and BPMN.
(This is relatively very expensive.)
There are three main CASE tools that support BPMN - they are almost Aris and Aris:
1. IDS Scheer's Aris: supports BPMN.
(IDS Scheer is a key member of the aforementioned BPMN consortium, and yes,
it's relatively very expensive, of course).
2. Oracle's BPA Suite: supports BPMN.
(This is just an OEM bundle of Aris.It's relatively very expensive, of course).
3. Telelogic's System Architect: supports IDEF0, IDEF3 and BPMN.
(This is relatively very expensive.)
Happy to help if required. This sort of thing is my bread and butter as a consultant.
Regards,
IainMSB.
Slashdot Mirror
Some people (not me, you understand) might suggest that anyone who:
(a) knows what they are doing in IT, and
(b) has invested intellectual capital and some data in setting up services on a free web medium with no contractual obligations on either side, and
(c) who has *not* backed up their site/data
- needs their head examining.
Just as an aside note to my post, and for what it's worth: other studies in reading speed and comprehension identified that our brains can actually gain sense (comprehension) of what a printed sentence is saying even if we can only see the *top half* of a printed sentence; considerably less comprehension comes from only being able to see the lower half.
However, comprehension was much improved in both cases when the printed characters had serifs - i.e., as opposed to sans serif fonts.
The UK AA (Automobile Association) repeated this research post-war, and that was why UK road direction signs - maintained by the AA - were black on white or yellow, printed using serifed fonts. (I think the best was probably Times Roman.)
Serifed fonts not only enhance comprehension, but by so doing can also enhance our reading speed.
This would seem to be unpopular or "lost" knowledge nowadays, as we seem to prefer to use sans serif fonts that "look nice" - e.g., Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif. It might seem idiotic to deliberately use printed fonts that can actually reduce our comprehension and reading speed, but, if we have massively irrational brains - as recent research would seem to indicate - then it's probably no surprise really.
There is stacks of fascinating research on ergonomics, visual perception and what colour combinations cause most and least perceptual disruption and eyestrain. For example - and I could be wrong, because this is from memory:
* The No.1 greatest perceptual disruption is caused by alternating black and yellow.
* The No.2 is alternating black and white.
* The No.3 is alternating green and red (or green and light blue) - but it fails on people who are colour blind.
That is why you can find these contrasts being used very effectively in road markings and chevrons, and warning signs, road direction signs, and as chevrons on emergency vehicles and vehicles that are used in road maintenance.
It is a historical accident that printed material is customarily black ink on whitish paper. That happens to be the 2nd worst combination and can make our eyes ache.
The colour combinations for printed material that seem to cause least perceptual disruption and eyestrain are:
* Black print on light (but not too light) green background.
* Black print on a lightish grey background.
I think these "better" colour combinations have been suggested in some of the posts as "preference", but it is not really a matter of preference, it is a matter of the way human visual perception generally operates.
The "black on black" that one wag here suggested could of course be an excellent eyestrain reducer, but it would seem to defeat the object somewhat. We'd all be in the dark if we did that. ;-)
This could help. Sorry, but I've not got time to sort out the HTML syntax on this crappy slashdot forum, but there you go - you get only what people can imagine... There is a "best" (i.e., proven) practice approach to BPR (Business Process Re-engineering) for IT operations. It is includes these points: * Good theory and defined "best" (proven) practice as a basis for rational action (there can be no rational action in the absence of theory): (a) For the management of IT processes: recommended is the international and pseudo-public domain ITIL (Information Technology Information Library). (a) A conventional Management of Change approach - Kotter's 8-Step Change Model. (b) A process capability model. The internationally used and general process capability maturity model - the Humphrey's CMM (a 5-stage process Capability Maturity Model) developed in 1986 as a tool to improve US Dept. of Defense software development contract-letting, by the SEI (Software Engineering Institute). The CMM, used as a *general* model for processes has nothing much to do with its newer sister-model the CMMi - which is *specifically* all about software development processes. * The approach includes, for example, process discovery, process definition (AS-IS and TO-BE), process modelling (preferably using a CASE tool). * A standards-based approach: IDEF: recommended are the well-established (1983), tried-and-tested public domain and internationally used FiPS (Federal Information Processing Standards) IDEF0 and IDEF3. IDEF was originally developed for the US Dept. of Defense, but has been used by many government depts. and commercial/non-commercial organisations worldwide - e.g., US, Europe, New Zealand, Australia, Canada. BPMN: the BPMN standard could be used, but that is proprietary to an industry consortium - it seems to have been set up in a classic self-serving manner - i.e., to develop a new (since 2003) standard that forces the user to buy the new CASE software developed and supported by members of the consortium. * Use of a CASE tool (highly recommended) for process modelling, as opposed to using "manual" diagramming tools such as Visio, Word diagrams or PowerPoint diagrams, for example. There are two main CASE tools that support IDEF0/IDEF3: 1. CA's Allfusion Process Modeler BPwin): supports IDEF0, IDEF3 (This seems to have been the leading industry product since at least 1988, and is relatively cheap. 2. Telelogic's System Architect: supports IDEF0, IDEF3 and BPMN. (This is relatively very expensive.) There are three main CASE tools that support BPMN - they are almost Aris and Aris: 1. IDS Scheer's Aris: supports BPMN. (IDS Scheer is a key member of the aforementioned BPMN consortium, and yes, it's relatively very expensive, of course). 2. Oracle's BPA Suite: supports BPMN. (This is just an OEM bundle of Aris.It's relatively very expensive, of course). 3. Telelogic's System Architect: supports IDEF0, IDEF3 and BPMN. (This is relatively very expensive.) Happy to help if required. This sort of thing is my bread and butter as a consultant. Regards, IainMSB.