I just held a meeting yesterday with my entire team to discuss this very topic.
Generally, I explained that the onus of successful communication lies with the giver (not the receiver). That is, if I want you to understand me, I must communicate in such a way that is understandable by you. (If I speak gibberish, I can't get upset if/when you don't understand me)
I explained that submitting a bug report is simply a form of communication, and the the bug report submitter is the "giver" of the communication. Thus, if they want to be understood, they must ensure that their communication is understandable by the receiver. And, since they don't know who the receiver might be, they must make is understandable to the "lowest common denominator" receiver. I said, "If you write a bug report that your grandmother can understand, there is less possibility that it will be misunderstood".
I explained that, "if you write a bug report...with the intent that is will be read and used by SOMEONE ELSE...there is a good chance you will write a good bug report."
That said, I also implemented a very simple, auto-populate "bug report template" that helps guide and remind users what to enter (ex: "Description of bug, What I did to cause the bug, What I thought was supposed to happen, What actually happened, etc.).
Sounds like the old, "our goal was to integrate conversations across multiple channels of communication...We want people to use whatever's easier for them" defense!
There had to be some human involvement. Which means a *person* (from the PRS?) must have shopped in her store, and heard the radio (or her singing), and thought, "Hmmm...This is outrageous! I'll have to do something about this! I'll report her!"
So, initially, this began with a single idiot.
I can only assume that this idiot brought back his report, and more *people* at the PRS thought, "This is outrageous! We'll have to do something about this!". It was then escalated, which resulted in the initial order.
So, subsequently, this was perpetuated by more idiots.
Somehow, the phrase, "A person is smart. People are stupid.", doesn't seem to apply here.
...it was while waiting (and waiting, and waiting) to be called to sit on Jury Duty. I sat outside on the smoking patio (middle of summer) near an outlet with my laptop and generated some of the best code of my life.
Perhaps I should start volunteering for Jury Duty...
From TFA: Everyone she knew, including law enforcement officials, her family and bank officials, told her to stop, that it was all a scam. She persisted.
"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." - Louis Armstrong
I was a code monkey for about 12 years before getting promoted to Team Lead (my current position). I have 6 developers under me. I'm not quite management, but I'm close enough (and deal with the same issues) that I feel I can answer.
Speaking of cheese...
Our company requires all Full Time Employees to take the Birkman Personality test (similar to the Meyer-Briggs Personality test). I don't put much credence into these types of tests. However, I've taken both versions multiple times (at different companies) and they DO always seem to result in similar findings.
So, when I was first promoted, the first thing I did was read each of my employees "summary" sheet from the test. It describes how the personal thinks/acts during calm and crisis situations. It also details how to respond to the individual. of course, each one was drastically different.
I've tried to follow the advice of the summary, and I believe it has helped.
Time will tell...
The judge addresses the defendant, "Sir, you have been found guilty of killing your WIFE with a hammer!"
The entire courtroom gasps, and one voice from the back yells, "You bastard!"
The judge continues, "Sir, you have also been found guilty of killing your KIDS with a hammer!!"
The entire courtroom gasps, and one voice from the back yells, "You Bastard!!"
The judge continues, "Sir, finally, you have been found guilty of killing your DOG with a hammer!! Your DOG!"
The entire courtroom gasps, and one voice from the back yells, "You BASTARD!!!"
The judge speaks, "Sir, I can appreciate your outrage at this heinous crime, but I must ask you to refrain from further outbursts or I will have to hold you in contempt of court."
A man in the back stands and says, "I'm sorry your honor, but...I've lived next to the defendant for 15 years...and every time I asked to borrow a hammer, he said he didn't have one!"
Slashdot Mirror
I just held a meeting yesterday with my entire team to discuss this very topic. Generally, I explained that the onus of successful communication lies with the giver (not the receiver). That is, if I want you to understand me, I must communicate in such a way that is understandable by you. (If I speak gibberish, I can't get upset if/when you don't understand me) I explained that submitting a bug report is simply a form of communication, and the the bug report submitter is the "giver" of the communication. Thus, if they want to be understood, they must ensure that their communication is understandable by the receiver. And, since they don't know who the receiver might be, they must make is understandable to the "lowest common denominator" receiver. I said, "If you write a bug report that your grandmother can understand, there is less possibility that it will be misunderstood". I explained that, "if you write a bug report...with the intent that is will be read and used by SOMEONE ELSE...there is a good chance you will write a good bug report." That said, I also implemented a very simple, auto-populate "bug report template" that helps guide and remind users what to enter (ex: "Description of bug, What I did to cause the bug, What I thought was supposed to happen, What actually happened, etc.).
Appropriate, for once...
Sounds like the old, "our goal was to integrate conversations across multiple channels of communication ...We want people to use whatever's easier for them" defense!
...or not so, the "Businesses" icon attached to this story is a telecommuter.
I did not. Interesting. Not sure what I think of that.
There had to be some human involvement. Which means a *person* (from the PRS?) must have shopped in her store, and heard the radio (or her singing), and thought, "Hmmm...This is outrageous! I'll have to do something about this! I'll report her!" So, initially, this began with a single idiot. I can only assume that this idiot brought back his report, and more *people* at the PRS thought, "This is outrageous! We'll have to do something about this!". It was then escalated, which resulted in the initial order. So, subsequently, this was perpetuated by more idiots. Somehow, the phrase, "A person is smart. People are stupid.", doesn't seem to apply here.
...it was while waiting (and waiting, and waiting) to be called to sit on Jury Duty. I sat outside on the smoking patio (middle of summer) near an outlet with my laptop and generated some of the best code of my life. Perhaps I should start volunteering for Jury Duty...
If he ever gives a speech about rabies, I'm not going...
...parody is being used to detect Alzheimer's disease, and satire to detect lupus.
From TFA: Everyone she knew, including law enforcement officials, her family and bank officials, told her to stop, that it was all a scam. She persisted.
"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." - Louis Armstrong
...it's Feeeeert, Albert!
I was a code monkey for about 12 years before getting promoted to Team Lead (my current position). I have 6 developers under me. I'm not quite management, but I'm close enough (and deal with the same issues) that I feel I can answer. Speaking of cheese... Our company requires all Full Time Employees to take the Birkman Personality test (similar to the Meyer-Briggs Personality test). I don't put much credence into these types of tests. However, I've taken both versions multiple times (at different companies) and they DO always seem to result in similar findings. So, when I was first promoted, the first thing I did was read each of my employees "summary" sheet from the test. It describes how the personal thinks/acts during calm and crisis situations. It also details how to respond to the individual. of course, each one was drastically different. I've tried to follow the advice of the summary, and I believe it has helped. Time will tell...
The judge addresses the defendant, "Sir, you have been found guilty of killing your WIFE with a hammer!"
The entire courtroom gasps, and one voice from the back yells, "You bastard!"
The judge continues, "Sir, you have also been found guilty of killing your KIDS with a hammer!!"
The entire courtroom gasps, and one voice from the back yells, "You Bastard!!"
The judge continues, "Sir, finally, you have been found guilty of killing your DOG with a hammer!! Your DOG!"
The entire courtroom gasps, and one voice from the back yells, "You BASTARD!!!"
The judge speaks, "Sir, I can appreciate your outrage at this heinous crime, but I must ask you to refrain from further outbursts or I will have to hold you in contempt of court."
A man in the back stands and says, "I'm sorry your honor, but...I've lived next to the defendant for 15 years...and every time I asked to borrow a hammer, he said he didn't have one!"
Shucks. If we'd only stopped learning years ago, we could predict *exactly* "what it's going to do".
Have your subjects been pleased or displeased with the way they were portrayed?
Anyone remember this blockbuster? Captain N: The Game Master http://us.imdb.com/Title?0096554
...who does the best Shatner (Kirk, Hooker, etc.) impersonation?
Pics?
...and if you DO assemble it incorrectly (but prefer it that way), will it then continue to warn you until the power runs out?
http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/games/showca rds/A/ant_city.html
Check out http://www.testingfaqs.org for a short list of possible contenders (GUI test drivers).