On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 6:36 AM, Pascal J. Bourguignon < p...@informatimago.com> wrote:
> John Zabroski <johnzabro...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Folks, > > > > Arguing technical details here misses the point. For example, a > > different conversation can be started by asking Why does my web > > hosting provider say I need an FTP client? Already technology is way > > too much in my face and I hate seeing programmers blame their tools > > rather than their misunderstanding of people. > > > > Start by asking yourself how would you build these needs from scratch > > to bootstrap something like the Internet. > > > > What would a web browser look like if the user didnt need a seperate > > program to put data somewhere on their web server and could just use > > one uniform mexhanism? Note I am not getting into "nice to have" > > features like resumption of paused uploads due to weak or episodic > > connectivity, because that too is basically a technical problem -- and > > it is not regarded as academically difficult either. I am simply > > taking one example of how users are forced to work today and asking > > why not something less technical. All I want to do is upload a file > > and yet I have all these knobs to tune and things to "install" and > > none of it takes my work context into consideration. > > > There are different problems. > > About the tools and mechanisms, and their multiplicity, it's normal to > have a full toolbox. Even with evolving technologies some tools are > used less often, each has its specific use and they're all useful. > > Also, the point of discrete tools is that they're modular and can be > combined to great effect by a competent professionnal. You wouldn't > want to dig all the holes with the same tool, be it either a spoon or a > caterpillar. > > > Now for the other problem, the "users", one cause of that problem is the > accessibility and openess of computer and software technology, which > doesn't put clear boundaries between the "professionnals" and the > "customers". There're all shades of grays, amateurs, students and D.I.Y > in between. > > But you're perfectly entitled to have expectations of good service and > ease of use. You only need to realize that this will come with a cost, > and it won't be cheap. > > Basically, your choice is between: > > - here, we have a toolbox, we will gladly lend it to you so you can have > fun hacking your own stuff. > > - tell us what you want, we'll work hard to provide you the easy > service, and we'll send you the bill. > > (ok, there are intermediary choices, but you can basically classify each > offer between a do-it-yourself solution and a everything-s-done-for-you > one). > > > However the difficulties of the later option is that things evolve so > fast that we may not have the time to develop affordable fine tuned > customer oriented solutions before they become obsolete. Developing and > refining such services takes time, and money. > > > And in general, programmers are not paid well enough. > > > Just compare the hourly wages of a plumber and a computer programmer, > and you'll understand why you don't get the same easy service from > programmers than what you get from plumbers. But this is a problem > easily solved: just put the money on the table, and you'll find > competent programmers to implement your easy solution. > > > But it seems customers prefer crappy service as long as it's cheap (or > "free"). > > Sorry, you did not answer my question, but instead presented excuses for why programmers misunderstand people. (Can I paraphrase your thoughts as, "Because people are not programmers!")
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
