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

Stating the obvious in hindsight is of very little value actually:
everyone and his dog does that all the time.

Stating the obvious with foresight is another matter. ^_^

Eric

somebody wrote:
> "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.

I was thinking the same....
I wonder what he thinks about FinalBuilder then... Whow LOTS of options...
That must be a bad tool...
I just want one button : Build my software!

"Add a virgin to the design team."

I'm still looking for the three wise men. . .

"Rick Carter" <carterrk> wrote in message
news:dc11
[..]

roman modic wrote:
> This session is about normal people - female
> without college degree ... ;)

My wife has almost a University degree. She curses most of the time
while trying to use any software or browse information from the web. She
seems to get lost to the tabs of the web browser, which I find very
usable myself, closing the window when she wanted to close the tab,
wondering where the previous page disappeared, and so on.

It is just a good reminder to be aware that most of the application
users will not probably find the cool features from your applications -
if they ever get a clue that the features even exist. The basic things
must be as simple as possible from the start.

The difference between "us techies" against "normal people" is that we
are interested in finding out what can be done with the software and
understand them ourselves. But most normal people would rather do
without the software at all. They just need to get their job done and
are forced to use software for that.

The problems get worse when the generic trend is that customer service
is moving more and more to Internet and everyone is gradually forced to
use software for most tasks that could be handled by phone or visiting
an office in the "good old days". At the same time the software systems
are getting more complicated to use...

An example (from a bit different domain): In Finland, the state TV
company has stopped analogue TV broadcasting, so everybody is forced to
use digital TV receivers. In general that means you now have a separate
digibox and TV set. Both have a remote control. You use the other one
for channel selection and the other for volume control. No problem for
techies, but try to explain that this is progress in usability to my
mother (or wife)... [Well, I have stopped using the TV set at all, but
that is another story.]

GrandmasterB wrote:
> Let me sum up the entire article to save people the time of reading it:
>
> Give your customers what they really need.


They won't pay for that, only what they think they *WANT*. ;=o
Mike

m. Th. wrote:

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

Yes, a better way to put it.

m. Th. wrote:

> do you have some concrete ways in mind to find what your
> are your user base's needs? :-)

It won't matter - no matter what they do, there will be any number of
vocal users who find reason to complain about it.

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.

From my reading of the article, it seemed clear that the author was
aware of that.


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

And yet, isn't it amazing how often software fails to live up to
'common sense'.

Rick Carter wrote:

> Well, you're certainly being cynical today!

It's not just today, I assure you. I'm always cynical.


> However, I'd also say that, over the years, the Delphi team at their
> best has often surprised us by introducing new tools and features
> that we never even asked for.

I strongly agree. My comment wasn't aimed at Delphi/CodeGear, but
rather at the disgruntled Usual Suspects here who will always manage to
find a cause for complaint.

Rick Carter wrote:

> I probably should not read too much into a one-line sarcastic comment,
> but you seemed to be suggesting that Nick and the Delphi team should
> stop working so hard to try to satisfy their customers.

Ah, I can see how one might read it that way. It wasn't the intent.

> There are, and will probably always be, the vocal few at this forum
> who don't even use Delphi any more, and are just here to take cheap
> pot-shots at CG and the Delphi team. There's no reason for Nick to do
> anything different for those people, since they'll just change their
> complaint, but still be just as vocal and negative.

Them's the ones I had in mind.

Madt Mallinckrodt wrote:

> "Add a virgin to the design team."

In one of my old companies many years ago we used the Managing Director
as the ultimate tester. If he could work out how to use the software
without breaking it we shipped it. :-)

Jouni Aro wrote:

>It is just a good reminder to be aware that most of the application
>users will not probably find the cool features from your applications -
>if they ever get a clue that the features even exist. The basic things
>must be as simple as possible from the start.
>
>The difference between "us techies" against "normal people" is that we
>are interested in finding out what can be done with the software and
>understand them ourselves. But most normal people would rather do
>without the software at all. They just need to get their job done and
>are forced to use software for that.

Good post! (Also good were all the paragraphs I snipped.)

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

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

>GrandmasterB wrote:
>> Let me sum up the entire article to save people the time of reading it:
>>
>> Give your customers what they really need.

MikeR wrote:
>They won't pay for that, only what they think they *WANT*. ;=o

Right. So there are at least two types of developers. One group watches
they way people work, and convinces them what they really need, and why
they should pay to have it done according to the developer's proposal.

Then there's the more cynical developers who only give the customer what's
spelled out in the requirements. Never mind what the software they're
looking to replace is already doing, or what most people would reasonably
expect from good software.

Where I work, we had some experiences with the latter kind.

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

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

"Andy Syms" <asyms> wrote in message
news:a351
> Madt Mallinckrodt wrote:
>
>> "Add a virgin to the design team."
>
> In one of my old companies many years ago we used the Managing Director
> as the ultimate tester. If he could work out how to use the software
> without breaking it we shipped it. :-)

I had a former co-worker that I used in that way for years. He was the
stereotypical computer illiterate engineer. He'd circle his finger over the
keyboard looking for a key, kind of like a vulture looking for dinner. Then
he'd click it, and repeat the process. If I could make something that he
couldn't totally screw up, it was ready to ship. I think having a virgin on
the design team, or at least the QC team, is essential.

Cheers,
Van

>m. Th. wrote:
>> do you have some concrete ways in mind to find what your
>> are your user base's needs? :-)

Tom Corey wrote:
>It won't matter - no matter what they do, there will be any number of
>vocal users who find reason to complain about it.

Well, you're certainly being cynical today!

Delphi has grown to be such a big project, and so many different users
concentrate on using different parts of it, that it is almost inevitable
that someone will complain that the part of Delphi they use the most hasn't
been extended and enhanced enough, or that it still has too many bugs.

However, I'd also say that, over the years, the Delphi team at their best
has often surprised us by introducing new tools and features that we never
even asked for. When they go beyond just correcting the biggest complaints
about the previous release(s), and go on to delight us with new features
that have us saying "I didn't even ask for this, but now I don't want to
work without it," that's when they're at their best. And I'm still hoping
for some of that in the upcoming releases.

Then again, the bar is always being raised for including new features.
I have to admit, now that I've heard about the "Historical Debugger"
proposed for the next version of VS, I'm almost tempted to "jump ship"
and switch languages unless the Delphi team comes up with something
equally good or better:
http://blog.excastle.com/2008/06/03/...ical-debugger/

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

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