A fine way to start a Friday

[semperfiona]

A nice bracing argument with the department head, raised voices and all.

Mark came by to ask me a question. Dan arrived shortly after to ask a
different question, but decided to involve himself in our discussion. It
escalated rapidly. Whee fun!

I think we have a big problem with information distribution around here.
The people selling our product and answering customer questions do not
have an authoritative resource for the answers they need. There's a
word-of-mouth process where each person gets an answer from the person
next to them, possibly someone who knows but just as likely someone who
has as little clue as the first one. Occasionally they ask the
programmer (me, Mark, etc). But nowhere do the correct answers get
compiled. And if they did get compiled, the culture is such that they
might not be consulted.

But Dan insists that we have to protect the users from doing stupid
things because they don't know any better. Sure, we can put in all kinds
of rules about what you can and can't do with the programs. But in many
cases doing that emasculates the program for people who *do* know what
they're doing. Wouldn't it make more sense to teach people "any better"
so they know why things work the way they do?

For maximum irony, the whole precipitating issue turns out to be
irreproducible. It's been fixed. But the discussion did have at least
one positive result. I've rethought a certain aspect of the process and
found a potential improvement that will make for more sensible results
from this process in the future.

I really mean it about "bracing". I'm more awake and alert afterward. I
feel good. For all the raised voices, there wasn't any disrespect--in
fact, there were compliments in all that shouting. "[semperfiona] knows
more about the ...system than anyone else."

This morning, Wendy greeted me by saying her day had started with a
corruption problem in Idea. After
the row, I asked her quietly whether an Idea corruption problem or a
fight with Dan was a better start to one's Friday. She allowed that I
win that one.

Comments

[notshakespeare.livejournal.com]

They are rolling out a new package in 2006. The basis of it is that they won't have to train the end users at all because the program will severely limit what the users can do.

So, now I know what happens when I complain the user's aren't trained.

[wyrd-sane.livejournal.com]

I think we have a big problem with information distribution around here.
The people selling our product and answering customer questions do not
have an authoritative resource for the answers they need. There's a
word-of-mouth process where each person gets an answer from the person
next to them, possibly someone who knows but just as likely someone who
has as little clue as the first one. Occasionally they ask the
programmer (me, Mark, etc). But nowhere do the correct answers get
compiled. And if they did get compiled, the culture is such that they
might not be consulted.

There's always a problem with information distribution. This is the industry standard. Actually, it's the standard for lots of things in all of human existence. Things like NOAA are an exception. (Bizarre, irrational subject jumps are also par for human experience.)

But Dan insists that we have to protect the users from doing stupid
things because they don't know any better.

Knowledge is power, but not everyone learns at the same rate. Further, not everyone wants to learn every little nuance of a piece of software. It might not be very cost effective for them to do so either.

But in many cases doing that emasculates the program for people who *do* know what they're doing. Wouldn't it make more sense to teach people "any better" so they know why things work the way they do?

I always figured the way to handle this is for the software have modes: novice, advanced, expert. And, rather than prevent the user from doing things simply add in a bunch of "are you sure?" dialogue boxes. The timid, "unkowledged" users will shy away. Those that are emboldended by their knowledge, or at least by what they think they know can press on, even if it means accidently sabotaging the company database.

Or you could crack a whip, force all of the users back to a command line interface, and shout "learn!" at them. But then they will be lured away by the piper down the street selling crack^H^H^H^H^HWindows and claiming "it's all easier over here. Look! I have a graphical user interface with pretty, pretty icons!"