Rick Carter wrote:

>
> Great blog entry by Joe White (notes from a TechEd presentation):

Agreed -- great post. Sounds like a great presentation.

Great blog entry by Joe White (notes from a TechEd presentation):
http://blog.excastle.com/2008/06/03/...oftware-sucks/

Rick Carter
carterrk
Chair, Delphi/Paradox SIG, Cincinnati PC Users Group

--- posted by geoForum on http://delphi.newswhat.com

GrandmasterB wrote:

> Really?

Yeah, really. Sometimes stating the obvious is very, very valuable.

Rick Carter wrote:
> Great blog entry by Joe White (notes from a TechEd presentation):
> [..]
>
> Rick Carter
> carterrk
> Chair, Delphi/Paradox SIG, Cincinnati PC Users Group
>
> --- posted by geoForum on [..]

Good overall article.

I HATE the 2007 Word, for instance (close to Vista in terms of bloatware
with little to zero functionality benefits).Why didn't MS leave it
alone? New Presentations are good, but other than this, Office 2007 SUKS!

The author is right in what we need to think about in terms of
development. Users want simple and something that works the way that
they do. They do not care if you have cutsie apps. They want functional
apps.

"Nick Hodges (CodeGear)" <nick.hodges> wrote in message
news:5821
> Rick Carter wrote:
>> Great blog entry by Joe White (notes from a TechEd presentation):
> Agreed -- great post. Sounds like a great presentation.

Really? I thought it was kind of tired, nothing particularly insightful.
Mostly monday morning quarterbacking of other people's apps. Anyone can do
that.

Let me sum up the entire article to save people the time of reading it:

Give your customers what they really need.

"Nick Hodges (CodeGear)" <nick.hodges> wrote
> GrandmasterB wrote:

> > Really?

> Yeah, really. Sometimes stating the obvious is very, very valuable.

But only sometimes, obviously.

"Rick Carter" <carterrk> wrote

> Great blog entry by Joe White (notes from a TechEd presentation):
> [..]

He should be told that adressing the common denominator doesn't always make
good software. I am sure there are some users who know and care about the
difference between full and incremental (and - gasp - even differential)
backup. Software that addresses their needs is not automatically bad just
because it doesn't conform to the author's worldview of dummifying
everything in order to address the majority of users. Also, while software
is a tool, there's nothing wrong with a user learning a thing or two while,
or in order to, use the tool.

Other than that, he makes the standard, common sense points about decent
design, nothing terribly insightful.

somebody wrote:

> But only sometimes, obviously.

And of course, anyone is perfectly free to find the talk useless. I
personally found it very intriguing.

somebody wrote:
> "Rick Carter" <carterrk> wrote
>> He should be told that adressing the common denominator doesn't always make
> good software. I am sure there are some users who know and care about the
> difference between full and incremental (and - gasp - even differential)
> backup. Software that addresses their needs is not automatically bad just
> because it doesn't conform to the author's worldview of dummifying
> everything in order to address the majority of users. Also, while software
> is a tool, there's nothing wrong with a user learning a thing or two while,
> or in order to, use the tool.
>
> Other than that, he makes the standard, common sense points about decent
> design, nothing terribly insightful.
>

I prefer software (and many programs do this now) to allow you to toggle
between 'easy' and 'advanced' modes. 'Easy' mode does the 'nominal'
stuff, and 'advanced' mode lets you tweak things to your heart's
content. But you can't even SEE the tweaks needed with 'advanced' mode
turned off, so you're not aware of extra clutter...

David Erbas-White

GrandmasterB wrote:
> "Nick Hodges (CodeGear)" <nick.hodges> wrote in message
> news:5821
>
> Really? I thought it was kind of tired, nothing particularly insightful.
> Mostly monday morning quarterbacking of other people's apps. Anyone can do
> that.
>
> Let me sum up the entire article to save people the time of reading it:
>
> Give your customers what they really need.
>>

Unfortunately you got it right.

What they need is not always what they ask for -- and that's where the
battle starts.

The true (software) artists are the ones that negotiate what is needed
-- as opposed to what is asked for.

I think you made a slip -- and got it right. But maybe not!

>"Rick Carter" <carterrk> wrote
>> Great blog entry by Joe White (notes from a TechEd presentation):
>>[..]

somebody wrote:
>He should be told that adressing the common denominator doesn't always make
>good software. I am sure there are some users who know and care about the
>difference between full and incremental (and - gasp - even differential)
>backup. Software that addresses their needs is not automatically bad just
>because it doesn't conform to the author's worldview of dummifying
>everything in order to address the majority of users. Also, while software
>is a tool, there's nothing wrong with a user learning a thing or two while,
>or in order to, use the tool.

OK, that's a fair criticism of the presentation. But the software should
make it simple for the person who just wants the simple options.

>Other than that, he makes the standard, common sense points about decent
>design, nothing terribly insightful.

Perhaps you and GrandmasterB really do always develop with these "common
sense points" in mind. But, if so, you're very much in the minority.

Or, just as likely if not more so, you may be in denial about how often
you don't apply those principles.

I'd agree with the presenter that most developers don't realize how much
their apps are not written the way that most users prefer to work.

Rick Carter
carterrk
Chair, Delphi/Paradox SIG, Cincinnati PC Users Group

--- posted by geoForum on http://delphi.newswhat.com

Nick,

| I personally found it very intriguing.

As did I.

"Rick Carter" <carterrk> wrote in message
news:d451
> >"Rick Carter" <carterrk> wrote
> >> Great blog entry by Joe White (notes from a TechEd presentation):
>
>>[..]
>
> somebody wrote:
> >He should be told that adressing the common denominator doesn't always
make
> >good software. I am sure there are some users who know and care about the
> >difference between full and incremental (and - gasp - even differential)
> >backup. Software that addresses their needs is not automatically bad just
> >because it doesn't conform to the author's worldview of dummifying
> >everything in order to address the majority of users. Also, while
software
> >is a tool, there's nothing wrong with a user learning a thing or two
while,
> >or in order to, use the tool.

> OK, that's a fair criticism of the presentation. But the software should
> make it simple for the person who just wants the simple options.

I agree in principle of course, but the devil is in the details. Is it
simpler to select a block and text, click on the bold button, and make it
bold for a section header, or is it simpler to design or pick a style and
then apply that style to the text. One step versus two. Most users would
pick the former, but is providing that as the more visible option really a
service to them in the long run, when they have multiple sections, multiple
documents, need consistency ... etc? Should not the software encourage the
"correct" way? I'm not saying all users need to become typesetters, and
sometimes you do want quick and dirty, but "simple" is tricky.

> >Other than that, he makes the standard, common sense points about decent
> >design, nothing terribly insightful.

> Perhaps you and GrandmasterB really do always develop with these "common
> sense points" in mind. But, if so, you're very much in the minority.

I don't know about him, but I don't always develop with the user in mind.
Sometimes, there are other constraints. Knowing and doing are different
beasts.

> Or, just as likely if not more so, you may be in denial about how often
> you don't apply those principles.
>
> I'd agree with the presenter that most developers don't realize how much
> their apps are not written the way that most users prefer to work.

Some don't realize, some don't care, some don't have the time or means to do
any usability study.

Hello!

"Rick Carter" <carterrk> wrote in message news:dc11
> Great blog entry by Joe White (notes from a TechEd presentation):
> [..]
>

[quote]
Overall population is 52% female.
....
82% of population, 72% of US adults, don't
have a college degree.
....
Normal people don't prize fine-grained control
over ease of use.
[/quote]


This session is about normal people - female
without college degree ... ;)


Cheers, Roman

Nick Hodges (CodeGear) wrote:
> GrandmasterB wrote:
>
>> Really?
>
> Yeah, really. Sometimes stating the obvious is very, very valuable.
>
+1.

....but let's rephrase a little bit:

"Sometimes stating /something which should be/ obvious is very, very
valuable."

Also, is /very/ nice to hear this from your side. Kudos. Btw, do you
have some concrete ways in mind to find what your are your user base's
needs? :-)