Re: news of the week

Words to the wise, Ashikaga <citizenashi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 103khz Claus Dragon shrieked:
Words to the wise, Ashikaga wrote:

Well..., what you are saying is true, but you'll hear from user support
about what they want anyways. Your brother is a user, so take advantage of
that is what I am saying.

Oh boy, your words of wisdom are enlightening me, oh ashi of ashis.

You don't have to listen to it, if you don't agree with it. Take whatever
you think applies and dumb everything that doesn't. That's what I do (but
then you guys would say why I don't listen to you guys.... I do, just not
everything).

No, you are just stating the obvious in too many words :)

Not all customers can spend a lot of time nor
have patience to explain to you what kind of problems/issues they have
encountered while using the software you are going to replace.

And as market leader, that company does not have the time to listen to
every whining user.
A software developer does not have the time to do that. That is the
job of support.

That's why NS failed. Intel also failed. Xerox failed. GM failed. (need
more examples?) Market leader doesn't mean anything unless the company can
keep their lead.

NS failed due to the bundling as Poly already mentioned. If you get
one application that somewhat does its job and it is shipped with the
OS, you will just use it. Windows explorer is so much inferior to
Total Commander, but how many do even know the latter?

Besides, Intel didnt fail, they still more or less rule the market
(unfortunately, I am all for competition).

*snsip*

I think you totally forgot about earlier versions of IEs. NS didn't want
to innovate their broswers and issued some sucky browsers and want to
charge their customers with premium prices. They also wanted to abandone
consumer segment and only focus on enterprise business. NS was too
arrogant to win the browser war. They only wanted to milk a cash cow until
their greed killed themselves.

So, they wanted money for their better product whereas MS just gave IE
away for free with Windows. I mean, in that case, it is rather obvious
who is going to win, isnt it?

Functionality does not mean clusters of buttons, I explained the
difference in the other post, so please read that before you use that
word in this context again.

I agree with you.

Even personal finance stuff like Quicken or
accounting software Quickbook, there are lots of weird quirks.

Which is the way accounting works, in my not so humble opinion.

Erm..., I am talking about the software that doesn't work as well as I
like. For example, I can't use standard Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V to cut and paste
under Quicken, since those short-cuts were assigned to other things....
It's hell of annoying!

This is a bug, though one might actually wonder why the keys for cut
and paste are next to each other ...

Reread what I said. They are assigned to do other tasks. It's a design
that's not well thoughtout. If a software that assigns F1 to anything
other than Help, wouldn't you be annoyed?

Breaking the standard metaphor is a bug, period. And I do not care
about F1, for I never read help files :)

Great, you want to use most often used options into the context menu,
wow, then you have a menu to scroll through in that context. Plus the
menu would have to change for each application, right?
And that would mean a lot of lengthy context menus for each app you
are using, right?

Are you beginning to see a problem there?

I am not saying making a context menu clustered. Let me explain what I am
thinking of. I am trying to say making the menu more appropriate. The
applications I like the most are the ones which will respond to user's
need. Before Micrografx was bought by Corel, their graphic suite (despite
buggy) knew what I wanted to do. After I mask a particular part of a
photo, I could right-click on the masked area and it'll give me the "most"
frequently used functions when one mask a graphic. I don't mean everything
on the menu bar. Just the ones that has to do with masks. If I click on
the zoom button, my mouse scroll bar would function like zoom in/zoom out,
instead of scroll up/scroll down. That's the kind of sensitivity/usability
I am thinking about.

That is what I am going to work on, actually, at least some time in
the future. But then you still have drastically changing menus for
different applications, right? This is a bit of a problem, better have
stuff like "cut, copy, paste" in there and dont bother with the rest
as it will not pay out very well (my thinking there).

*snip car stuff*

Constantly I hear people complaining
about software people use doesn't work the way people work. It's a subject
teachers like to talk about (well, teachers like to talk about having
standards), coworkers like to complain about.

And what has that to do with anything?

That is called opportunity. It's your job to turn that into strategic
advantage. When I designs a website, I constantly have to think about why
I hate a certain websites, so I don't make the same mistake. I also have
to test my pages with browsers and screen resolutions that I don't use. I
didn't design the website for me. I designed it for users. See why
Netscape is a loser?

Webdesign is not really comparable to real application development.
Most applications do have a reason to exist, web sites, as a rule,
dont :)

Besides, for websites, you have different standards. Functionality
there at first just means it works and you can see stuff. For an
application, that means it works without bugs in most cases.

*snip*

Think this way. Are you designing the software for your company or are you
designing it for users? If you want people to keep using your software,
it's very important that they want to use it. Let me spell everything out
for you. If users don't use your software, then your company won't be a
market leader. If your company is no longer the market leader, then
they'll make less money. When they make less money, your job security is
at risk.

Users have to use that software since there is no alternative which
offers the same functionality, yet.

That's why I mentioned to you
that since you have a brother who happens to use the software, take that
opportunity.

And you think you are telling me thing I do not already know?

When you read an essay, do you feel frustrated by the introduction
paragraph, though it states everything you already know? And when
conclusion paragraph arrives, do you get frustrated it's just a restatement
of everything? I hope not. It's a precursor to other topics, so don't pay
too much attention to it. When one writes, there are premises that must be
paved so everyone is on the same wavelength, not jumping to the middle of
something and get everyone confused. The conclusion will again, ties
everything back together.

I tend to ignore both introductions and conclusions, or sometimes, if
I am in a hurry, I just read those and nothing else.


--
Claus Dragon <clauskick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
=(UDIC)=
d++ e++ T--
K1!2!3!456!7!S a26
"Coffee is a mocker. So, I am going to mock."

- Me, lately.
.