Re: SIL Toolbox and IPA Unicode 1.0

Philippe Caquant wrote:

> Ha, you got me wrong. Sure, knowledge like "I know how
> to handle with a Unix system", "I know how to tune an
> Oracle database", "I know the differences between Java
> and Javascript", "I know what is a class, a datatype,
> a literal value, an array, and whatever", "I
> understand what is n-tier" may be qualified by the
> name of science.
No, that's nothing to do with science. That's, and wait for it:
E-N-G-I-N-E-E-R-I-N-G.

> Now think for a moment. Computers and programs are
> supposed to be used by, you know what ? Not computer
> specialists, but PEOPLE.
So what am I? An android or something? Last time I looked in the mirror,
I though I looked vaguely humanoid, but I might have been wrong...

> Ordinary people with two
> hands, each one's property being having fingers, usual
> cardinality of them being (0,6), but rather five. And
> a limited brain.
And you know what, so do I! One of the few things that makes me a bit
special is that I've got a rather large short-term memory, something
essential when you're developing systems as complex as the ones we do.

That's why I've got a post-it note attached to my monitor: "write code
for people, not the computer". The idea being that later on when I have
to change things, I'll be able to understand what's going on, and the
bloke who has to maintain my software later will thank me for it.

> And their own goals, and their own
> purposes, and their own preoccupations, having
> absolutely nothing to do with specialists'
> preoccupations. And limited time. And a boss urging
> them to get the work done.
And you forget that do are we: we've got to develop all this stuff in a
limited time, within a limited budget, and sometimes the quality of the
output isn't exactly what we'd like it to be. What would you prefer:
something imperfect you can actually use, or perfect vapourware.

If it's perfect vapourware you want, do install TUNES.

> What those people want when
> they are in front of a screen is, among others :
> - what does the program want me to do ?
> - how can I do it ?
> - how can I get the help I need, quickly and
> effectively ?
> - how can I use this program to get my own goals
> realized ?
What do you do for a living?

> This is the topic of a (supposed) science called
> "ergonomy". This is exactly the thing that a real,
> pure, smart, clever, computer specialist doesn't want
> to hear about.
No, we do. We want tools we can use too. You seem to be forgetting that
we're users to, and we've families that use these things.

> "If I can understand and master it, why
> should the vulgum pecus not understand it, except
> because they are stupid" is the motto.
When I'm building things, I assume the user isn't an idiot, but I don't
assume they care enough to take the time to learn everything that can
be done with the software.

What I try to do is make things accessible, and design my interfaces in
such a way that people will be lead to learn more about the software.
However, sometimes deadlines encroach and I can't get this perfect. Oh,
well.

> But I, as a user, don't give a damn about what the smart
> specialist thinks.
Then why should they give one about you if you're going to mindlessly
disparage their hard work like that?

> I got a fucking tool, and I want to
> be able to use it a quick and efficient way, and soon
> be able to realize what I want to realize, dot.
You know, there's different kinds of users, and software has to
accommodate all of them. It has to make it easy for the occasional
user who's just starting out and knows little or nothing about how
to use it and doesn't want to know. You've got power users who want
to dig into the software and push it to its limits: these people use
unavoidably difficult to initially grasp concepts like stylesheets in
Word.

You complaints sound like somebody who doesn't like the fact that their
car doesn't take them from A to B without having first learned how to
used the damned thing.

There's very little that's intuitive about anything. There's always
something new you need to learn, and I'm sorry but that's unavoidable.

> What is inside the box is not at all my problem. By "user",
> I mean as well final users (using applications) as
> intermediate users (designing applications for final
> users). I am both a final user and an intermediate
> user.
So am I, and in different things. But I'm not frightened by the computer
and maybe that's why I'm able to grasp new pieces of software for
disciplines I know little or nothing about rather quickly.

> In both cases, I want effective, smart and
> pleasant tools. I don't want to hear about things
> like: "type Ctrl+? to interrupt a sub-command, Ctrl-E
> to go one line forward, z^ to go one page backward, ZZ
> to write the file and quit editor, :q! to quit editor
> without writing the file".
You're confusing thing. There isn't a piece of modern software that
*requires* you to use esoteric keystrokes these days. For beginners,
there are menus and icons, with context-sensitive help to guide them
along. When you're comfortable with a piece of software, you can start
using keystrokes to increase your productivity.

The likes of vi are extreme examples of this. Modal interfaces are
hard to grasp and get used to, but once you do, they tend to be
extremely efficient. There's stuff I can get done in vi that would
take me far too long to do otherwise.

 > When I see things like
> this, and even understanding the possible historical
> reasons for it, I just want to bite, or at least to
> hit severely the conceptor of the tool (vi, in this
> case, which is certainly the most caricatural example
> in the world; but many final-user tools are hardly
> better from that standpoint).
But it's not an end-user tool. It and its ilk are power tool. It has a
place, even if you don't particularly like it.

> The computer specialists are, as a rule, unbearably
> satisfied of themselves and their tools.
Any user is. They're comfortable and happy with them.

> Never in
> their life, of course, they would imagine for one
> secund that they could be inside the skin of the poor
> sucker trying to use them.
Oh, but they don't. I'd never get my sister or mother to write stuff up
in vi, or stop them from using tools their comfortable with unless I
had a very good reason. One instance is where I got my sister to stop
using IE and use Firefox instead. I'm still trying to get her to use a
proper mail application rather than webmail so she can cut down on phone
bills, but in the end it's down to her.

> How many times I heard,
> when complaining to the conceptor about something
> illogical or ununderstandable in an application, for
> ex: "yes, but that's the way it was supposed to work,
> there is no bug".
Sometimes they're right, sometimes the complainant is. But you need to
give a solid example.

> - But you can see by yourself that
> it doesn't fulfill the user's needs ? - Ah, but from
> my standpoint, it just works. Not my problem."
If the developer wasn't promising support in the first place, they've no
responsibility in that regard. That's not to say that most won't though:
no developer I know who likes the idea of having users has that that
kind of disregard for users you describe.

K.

--
Keith Gaughan -- talideon.com
The man who removes a mountain begins by carrying away small stones.