On Saturday 22 December 2007 15:53, James Knott wrote: > Randall R Schulz wrote: > > On Saturday 22 December 2007 15:14, James Knott wrote: > >> ... > >> > >> I have to agree. I have provided software support at IBM and have > >> found some users could avoid a lot of their problems, if they'd > >> just learn to use their computer properly. You don't find many > >> carpenters who don't know how to use a hammer and saw. A computer > >> is a tool for people do to their work and it's their > >> responsibility to learn how to use it properly. In my book, > >> anyone who refuses to learn is refusing to do their job. > > > > Learning to use a tool is quite distinct from learning how the tool > > works. It's the "how does it work" / "how do I work it" > > distinction. > > > > Very few people know how cars or elevators or the telephone network > > or radio or television or VCRs / DVRs or GPS or digital audio > > players or the electrical grid or the water supply or the sewage > > system or metallurgy or refrigeration or woodworking or the > > automobile fuel supply or package delivery or pharmaceutical > > manufacturing or a myriad other technological systems work. > > > > Shall we deny access to these things to people who cannot pass a > > test on their inner workings? > > > > No, it is the responsibility of the practitioners of IT to make its > > artifacts accessible and useable to people without the need for an > > understanding of the inner workings of those technologies. > > > > > > Randall Schulz > > How many are there, whose productivity depends on a VCR etc? I'm not > talking about knowing how to fix networking problems. I'm talking > about going beyond memorizing the one way someone showed them how to > do something. I'm talking about expanding there skills, so they can > do their job better. I have seen some really incredibly dumb things > that people could have avoided by making a little effort to learn how > to use their tools.
Productivity? This is not about productivity. This is about access to information. If you want to make this analogy, better examples would be harmful drug interactions, tainted food and water, power failures, communication network breakdowns, etc. Nonetheless, it really doesn't matter. There can be no technological society without a strong division of labor between practitioner / engineer and user. Specialization demands it. (_Demands_ it!) What you're really talking about is a value judgement. But you don't have the right to dictate to the user of an everyday consumer technology the standards of understanding of the underlying technology that is required to avail one's self of the benefits of that technology. We're not talking about operating a petroleum refinery, a power plant, an air traffic control center, a pharmaceutical manufacturing plant, a steel mill, a software shop, etc. We're talking about everyday, end users. Everything from school children to harried parents to senior citizens. If IT professionals cannot make this technology self-evident, they have failed. And so far, we have far too many failures to answer for and rectify. Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
