Re: CHAT: The ridiculously stupid, offtopic HCI thread.

Philippe Caquant said:
> OK, let's stop here. Just one point: I of course don't
> criticize softwares because they were made by
> anglophones.
Right. You simply criticize anglophones directly and categorically, so you
have no need to bring their software into it.


> My idea is
> that pointing the problems allows to think about them,
> and solve them if possible.
Your mistake is one of over-generalization. You believe that, because you
see problems in your office, it can only be the case that the entire
fields of computer science and software/hardware engineering are such that
they have negligently allowed your specific needs to fall through the
cracks in your specific office at this specific time.

It's entirely possible that you need a more enlightened IT shop where you
work, in which case you could apply for a job there and do it better, or
look for a job for a different organization. (Maybe even a job that
doesn't require computers, if you figure that computers just aren't there
yet.)

It's also possible that you have never learned to communicate your needs
to those whose job it is to see that they are met. If the latter is the
case, then you have some learning to do. If you believe that you are a
well-educated man already and nobody has the right to require you to learn
anything new ever again, then I wish you the best of luck for the rest of
your career -- you'll need it, unless you want to clean public toilets or
something.


> You're right, the sentence: "If they are modern good
> tools, why weren't they included in the package ?"
> makes no sense. I often type "they" instead of
> "there". So one should read: "If there are...".
Why are you asking us instead of asking your IT shop? Not communicating
your needs and complaints to them is likely to be part of the problem.


> I just say that the argument
> "majority is always right" is not an argument.
Nobody said the majority is always right, or ever right, even.

What was said is that some tools are good for some people, and other tools
are good for other people, and that the tools you're complaining about are
good for a lot of people (just not for you, which is fine). (This was said
in rebuttal to your claim that the tools are "bad" in an absolute sense,
merely because they're not good for you.)

If you've been given tools that are not good for you, then somebody has
made a mistake. It might be your mistake, your IT staff's mistake, or a
mistake to which you've both contributed. (Assuming that every computer
specialist is utterly uninterested in users' needs, and that she always
thinks users are stupid, is an excellent way for a user to contribute to
such mistakes.)


-- Mark

P.S. This is the kind of advice I get paid for as a Fortune-10 management
consultant. If that makes me part of the problem in your eyes, then I can
live with that. I'll not be billing you for my time in any event.

P.P.S. What was the name of the guy with the stapler in _Office Space_?
"They promised me a good editor last year, but now they gave me vi. But
they promised! Nobody can make me use a bad editor. George got a good
editor last month, so I think I should have a good editor. They promised
me a good editor. Last year. It's been a whole year and I've had to use a
bad editor. Everybody else has a good editor. I need a good editor. If I
don't get a good editor, it's my right to stay home from work. On some
days. And they'll still have to pay me, because they didn't give me a good
editor like George's. I'll show them!"

Reply