🚀 go-pugleaf

Jeff Darcy writes:
 
JD> The "technological priesthood" to which I referred includes
JD> all programmers who fail to realize that the purpose of
JD> their work is to make it possible for non-programmers to do
JD> *their* jobs either better or faster. There are far too many
JD> techno-weenies out there who think that the users exist for
JD> the programmer's benefit, and who are more interested in
JD> playing with the "sexiest" technology than in producing
JD> anything useful. Many of the people who've expressed dislike
JD> or disdain for graphical interfaces have argued that they
JD> make programmers' lives more difficult, as if that were some
JD> sort of crime. The poor babies! How dare we demand that they
JD> take time away from their pursuit of the Ultimate Hack to
JD> make things easier for the mere mortal *users* who sign
JD> their paychecks? There's nothing wrong with hacking, but
JD> don't start crying when people expect you to *earn* your pay
JD> when you'd rather go play.
JD>
JD> I'm down in the trenches, hacking all sorts of code, and I
JD> damn well know how good it feels to pull off some nifty
JD> technical stunt. HOWEVER, I realize that nifty hacks are not
JD> what I'm paid for, nor should they be. I am paid to make
JD> systems *usable* and, like any true engineer (as opposed to
JD> outgrown hobbyists) I believe that the true measure of my
JD> ability is not how *amazing* my work is, but how
JD> *functional* it is. If I want amazement I should work on
JD> leading edge projects, not try to apply leading edge
JD> technology where it may not be appropriate. After all, who
JD> needs an FDDI interface to a 100 cps daisy-wheel printer?
JD>
JD> I just think that *useability* is a very important part of
JD> what makes a Mac unique, and a lot of people don't seem to
JD> appreciate the power of that idea.
 
Let me take the time out to mention that as a user, I do indeed appreciate 
your efforts in improving your programs for my useability and
productivity.  Your statements are right on the button.  Might I add that
this goes not only for computer programs but for CD players, televisions,
stereos, etc?  When was the last time anyone saw a remote control that was 
actually useable?  Just because something _can_ be done, does NOT mean
that it _should_ be done, necessarily.  Think things out to the end user
level before you do them.
 
--Adam--
 
--  
ADAM FRIX via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH
UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!200!ADAM.FRIX
INET: ADAM.FRIX@f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG