Without spending a whole lot more time on this, this is the article I was reffering to. http://www.sdmagazine.com/documents/s=9411/sdm0411b/sdm0411b.html?temp=mBMlD... other comments mixed in below..... On Tuesday 16 November 2004 11:33 am, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Brad,
On Tuesday 16 November 2004 09:30, Brad Bourn wrote:
...
I recently read an article in one of my linux mags that talked about the difficulty for the laymen to get involved in the open-source movement.
Why would non-professionals whose only interest in computers is to accomplish some kind of work or play care about getting involved in a "movement." If anything, that's going to deter them.
It's not that "the movement" (ignoring the unpleasant biological function connotation) need not happen, but that it is only for the self-selected "movementarians" (with a nod to "The Simpsons") to participate in it. Dedicating ones self to a movement cannot be made a requirement for people whose only interests are the ends they want or need to accomplish.
Because people hear about the wonderfull alternative to M$ that is Linux. It is the expecting people to become part of it to the extent that the ones in "the know" are, that is the fuel to flame the ones that just want answers to get their work done. That's my point. Do we agree on this?
The main problem or deterrent that was referred to was the prevailing attitude of those that are in the know.
The real problem is that there is any degree of beholdenness to any particular cognoscenti at all. That's as much true for Linux and other free or open-source software as it is for proprietary and closed-source (MS or Apple, e.g.).
Apple has done more than anyone by freeing the users of its hardware and software from the need to appeal to experts. The success of their approach is illustrated in large part by the premium they've historically been able to charge for their systems.
And it's not cheap (in effort, which is usually something that costs money) to produce such easy-to-use software. Usability testing is something of an art and cannot be done haphazardly, incidentally or entirely after the fact. It must be integrated into the process of software design and development.
This fact may in itself be the greatest Achilles heel of the open source phenomenon. A small group of skilled and devoted software architects and programmers (and in many cases a single individual) can produce a lot of highly functional software, but highly usable software is a much more interdisciplinary practice and few good programmers do good interaction design.
agreed. So, the way I see it, the people that aren't the developers, are a valueable resource to aid in taking the highly functional and adding the polish needed to make it highly usable, and as a valuable resource, they shouldn't be turned away, discouraged, or flamed.
When you ask a question and get told to RTFM. When you get on a mailing list and ask some questions only to get flamed.
This really just means you're asking the wrong person or asking in the wrong way. People here are all essentially volunteers. They are not being paid to help people along, and they quite reasonably expect the supplicants (heh, heh) to have done their part. Due diligence is to read available documentation and other Web resource before turning their problem over to a group of self-selected, unpaid individuals whose motives generally should not be impugned and who owe nothing other than basic etiquette to the seeker of help.
Agreed. I like to tell newbies that geeks love to have the answers, they don't necessarily like to explain them. So, don't ask vague questions that give the impression you aren't willing to do any work and just want the answer, like, "how do I make my mouse work". Instead, give it your best shot, and if you get stumped, ask a specific question and they'll fall all over themselves trying to give you the answer like, "I plugged my mouse into my printer port and I still can't get it to work, what did I do wrong" On the other hand, as a developer, if one of my clients wanted to know how to do something specific with my software, I would tell them what they wanted to know instead of telling them to read the manual. I find that allot of people (at least business people that don't want to know the geeky stuff) weigh this into their choice of software. If vender A just tells them what to do step by step so they can see the process all the way through, and Vender B tells them to read the manual (that they have to understand it, not just know how to use it), they will go with Vendor A.
One of the skills I have been working on is how to turn someones energy to flame me into energy to give me the answer I'm looking for. I don't think it should be that way.
It would be nice to be able to expect that users ask their questions intelligently, but as we can readily see here and on almost any comparable forum, many people have trouble pushing the correct buttons on their mailer. Questions that are unanswerable due to their vagueness or lack of background details are commonplace--almost the norm. How much of that kind of nonsense should we accept with complete graciousness? A little negative feedback is sometimes called for, I'd say.
I agree mostly. This was certainly the case with Anders response. I personally try to respond to those types of questions on this list with answer instead of questions. e.g. Q: How do I change the resolution of my console? A: If you mean the resolution of the framebuffer device that is used to diplay the console, you set that with the vga= boot parameter of the kernel. With Grub it is in the /boot/grub/menu.1st file instead of What do you mean? Can you be more specific? If they knew enough to be able to ask the question right, they probably would be asking the question. By giving an answer that might help, at least your providing more information to aid in their understanding so they have a chance to see what clarifications need to be made.
...
Can't we all just get along?
Stranger things have happened.
If a person is truly good enough at what they do, they should easily be able to get other to follow their reasoning without brute force, flame prodding.
I don't agree. I'm very good at software design, but that doesn't mean I'm good explaining the more elementary aspects of software. They've been pushed down so far in my way of thinking, that I find it hard sometimes to explain them to lay people (I practice on my parents, who are now in their 70s). Just as with my previous point about interaction design and usability testing, education and clear writing is its own discipline, and experts in a given profession are often not the best people for educating novices in their own field.
Well, your right. I guess this is more of a standard I hold myself to. I'd like to be able to do both.
I wish I could find the article I'm talking about, well worth the read. I think our cleaning lady threw it out when she cleaned the bathroom this weekend....
Perhaps if you did your own dirty work...
hehehe, I doubt my company would like me cleaning the bathrooms instead of developing software, and she might get pissed if I put her out of work. B-)