I think Clark has a good point but as I stated to one user, it is this
statement that is of concern. "If you can read, you can upgrade your rig."
This should be
changed to say "If you read (the instructions), you can upgrade your rig."
Most all of us have the ability to read but typically follow the rule, if
all else fails, read the instructions. How many of us have actually read
the Owners Manual to our cars? But we say, we can drive and have been doing
so for years so why is it necessary to read the manual.
Having been in the electronics customer service business for several years,
I find that a large percentage of faults today are the result of users not
reading the manual. They simply want to be told how to do something or
shown how to do something. No time for reading.
To that end, at risk of serious personal criticism, I'd say that if a
manufacturer sends out the manual some 2 or 3 weeks prior to shipping the
equipment, the user related faults would decrease.
73
Bob, K4TAX
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clark Savage Turner" <csturner@slonet.org>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] "Remember, it's a computer."
>
> On Sunday, March 16, 2003, at 02:14 AM, Chester wrote:
>
> > We complain about Mr. Gates OS, but in fact 99% of the problem is with
> > the user. We don't read the operators manual for our radios, do you
> > really think we read the user's manual for the most important part of
> > our computer? Heck No! The computer is 'exact' device, that is, it
> > requires a 'one' or a 'zero' and if we users don't give it exactly what
> > it requires, IT IS NOT GOING TO BE STABLE for us. Remember that
> > computers are not as forgiving as our radios; after all we all know that
> > 468/f is not an exactly correct formula for wavelength, but it gets us
> > close. Using a 'format' that is not supplied with the OS is more than
> > likely to get us close, but our computers believe 'close' is not good
> > enough.
>
> Good points. I've published academic articles about them, they are
> important to keep in mind.
>
> I would disagree with the "99 percent" of problems being the user
> though. I am concerned with the *engineering* of software, especially
> the interfaces. The "engineer," by definition, is tasked to produce a
> machine that is *useful* to the humans who will use it. If many users
> have trouble using the software defined machine, this is an engineering
> failure, not a user failure. Usability can be improved vastly, though
> it takes some resources. Blaming the user for bad interfaces is a
> serious problem imho. This is not to say that Tom is wrong at all, he
> is not. Users need to understand the instructions. I believe that for
> hams this is a system problem, both sides work towards the middle. In
> general, though, software "engineers" have to learn how to produce
> software that is useful for humans, as natural and intuitive as
> possible. (We have a long way to go!)
>
> Clark
> WA3JPG
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
|