Re: Fit for purpose?
- From: "The Todal" <deadmailbox@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 12:39:32 +0100
"PDR" <peter.rieden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:484d0a47$1_1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I'm tempted to say "Do your own homework!", because this sounds like a set
of homework questions. However:
"Nick" <area5pr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7e6fb4bc-5e3e-4ddd-92bf-8480ae18cd0b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Please consider these scenarios:
(1) I buy a car which allows me to engage the reverse gear whilst
moving forward at speed thereby causing huge amount of damage to
gearbox and clutch.
This would actually be non-compliant to the Construction & Use
Regulations, which require some kind of mechanical device which makes it
require a positive effort to engage reverse gear (although pushing against
a spring is an acceptable solution). So you could argue that the car was
non-compliant to its Type Approval and thus unfit for purpose, or (where
appropriate) "broken" where the mechanical device was designed in but not
functioning.
(2) I have a computer which allows me to insert a floppy disk upside
down thereby causing damage to the computer.
All the magnetic disk formats in popular use today have specific features
to prevent this, and the user would have to literally hammer the disk to
get it into the drive upside-down. I think this constitutes abuse. The
optical disk formats don't have these features, but inserting a CD or DVD
unsode-down would not damage the computer. Similarly the older and less
common magnetic disk formats (5.25" and 8") which could, with some effort,
be inserted upside-down would not cause damage to the computor. SO the
question is based on a false premise.
(3) I have a camera which allows me to insert the film wrong way
around causing the sprockets to break.
Again, I can't think of a film format which would allow this, and even if
it could it's hard to see how it would break the sprockets, so the
question is based on a false premise. But if there WAS a camera in which
it was not obvious how the film was inserted I would expect the user to
consult the manual. The question would then hinge on how effectively the
manual communicated the information.
(4) I have a DVD player which gets damaged if I insert the dvd disc
upside down.
Yet again, there is no such animal, but the answer for the camera scenario
(above) would be equally applicable here.
It is a fundemental tennet of engineering that it is actually impossible
to design things to be idiot-proof, because as soon as you design
something proof against all current types of idiot they invent a better
idiot.
However, it doesn't take an idiot to insert a film cartridge incorrectly or
put a DVD in the slot upside down. Sensible people do that.
I'm a sensible person - I think. About 10 years ago I had a laptop computer
and was trying, for the first time ever, to insert a pcmcia card. After
several unsuccessful attempts, I noticed that several of the pins within the
socket were now bent, making it impossible to insert it again. I still don't
know what I did wrong, but I accepted at once that it must have been my
fault and did not ever try to get it repaired. In those days, you were
grateful if the computer was willing to do anything for you at all.
.
- References:
- Fit for purpose?
- From: Nick
- Re: Fit for purpose?
- From: PDR
- Fit for purpose?
- Prev by Date: Re: Neighbour's access to my land
- Next by Date: Re: Speeding offence
- Previous by thread: Re: Fit for purpose?
- Next by thread: Re: Fit for purpose?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
