distrowatch comment: "Ubuntu Breezy Badger - is it too dumbed
news at pointerstop.ca
Fri Dec 30 21:13:03 GMT 2005
Anders Karlsson wrote:
> On 12/30/05, Scott <angrykeyboarder at angrykeyboarder.com> wrote:
>> Eric Dunbar wrote:
>> > Every developer HAS TO USE the "we know what's good for users and they
>> > don't" approach.
>> How odd.
>> > WITHOUT IT, YOU CANNOT WRITE SOFTWARE FOR OTHERS!!!
>> And why not?
> Let's pretend you are going to write a spreadsheet application Scott..
> Just for arguments sake yeah? Let's for arguments sake say that you
> include a ROUND() function in your application, because it makes sense
> and it is a rather handy function after all. You are at that moment
> making assumptions about your users (if you intend for anyone else
> ever to use that spreadsheet application that is).
If you did it that way, you'd be making a serious mistake.
> You are at that
> very moment saying "I know what is good for my users" - whether you
> like it or not.
No, you would have checked with your users and found that it _was_ a useful
function before you bothered to add it. If you were any good...
> Now imagine a couple of users giving you grief over your decission to
> include that ROUND() function because it isn't the right type of
> ROUND() function. You decided to do it the mathematical way, and these
> users expected it to work the way Excel does it.
> You included functionality because you found it useful, perhaps other
> users requested it, but a small select few didn't like it.
See, you've already turned it around. You are now saying that the software
was written the way it was because users (other than the select few) needed
> Out of interest, how would you go about writing software if you did
> not make assumptions about how potential users would use the software?
It's called "analysis". Software written based on assumptions goes the way
of anything else that's designed based on assumptions.
More information about the sounder