Ageek
4 Jul 2003, 7:48pm
Just for fun, lets discuss craziness and Iconoclasitc modes of thought in the light of thingking out of the box.
Folks who specialize focus on what they know. Some know hardware, some software, some know people and feelings adn how people think and get things done more than others (to the extent thta this can be really known).
Instead of thinking of computers as things that do things one best way and that therefore I have to conform to "THAT WAY," I opt to think that computers should serve me as tools. To work best as such, they need to meet my styles of work and my needs.
Let's talke this a step further. Computers as tools, people driven design, means what??? I was taught something kinda old-fashioned: the most important part is not the people only, nor the software only, nor the hardware only. It was building an information flow and communications and correlating and aggregating with minimal loss system. That means that poeple have to be a huge part of the design, that one person's best system will never be all people's best system (because we are individuals who think individually and guranteed DIFFERENTLY), and that the best system is not just the best person fitted to the best hardware and software.
Think of it this way if your mind does not bridge the gap I left there deliberately-- which is more important, the client or the servant??? Well, the person buying the service makes the servant able to eat and drink better things the way things work here on earth. So the server should determine which servant with what qualities to hire-- and what tools fit his hands best, and what procedures he can both learn and do in the least amount of time and remember easiest. The servant needs to fit the one being served or there will be lots of frustration.
So, does the person who wants service buy anything and mold him or herself to what that thing does??? NOT! Should, then, he change his or her ways radically to use a computer as a thing that tells him or her what to do??? Equally not, IMHO.
Given I think different than you, I have different physical limits than you, a machine designed for me that works best for me will not be the one that works best for you. Guaranteed. 100% so.Anyone that says so lies, IMHO.
We can say this aspect is obviously better, or that, but to be useful to all we need to discuss also why we think so. why??? Good ideas drive good design.
Best design flows the info we can best understand with the least frustration at the speed we can handle it with the least extraneous (extra and unneeded)info at the speed we can take it in, but as individuals rather than as a whole. And it does it most consistently that way, or we need to look at the new mouse trap and evaluate it for ourselves.
That means one person's poorest choice might be someone else's best choice. And that gotchas are more likely to be human related somehow without being universally wrong. So let's also include human factors as real relevant to our discussions.
And if someone says "that stinks," ask "why?" and then maybe see how others think and what you can learn instead of ever getting personal.
And not being afraid to tell why helps. And not being afraid to see that in the other person's shoes this makes sense-- though for them, and not necessarily for you. And they need to do the same.
The best computer, I will put to you for thought and reaction after saying the above, is the one that lets me best accomplish my legit goals. Since I am an individual, I need to choose how to measure best, because best in a system is what meshes best-- and I am big part of system. And thank heavens I am not universally right or I would be totally bored.
That is the spirit I perceive here, thanks for putting up with me. And I welcome and encourage your reactions.
John Danielson.
Folks who specialize focus on what they know. Some know hardware, some software, some know people and feelings adn how people think and get things done more than others (to the extent thta this can be really known).
Instead of thinking of computers as things that do things one best way and that therefore I have to conform to "THAT WAY," I opt to think that computers should serve me as tools. To work best as such, they need to meet my styles of work and my needs.
Let's talke this a step further. Computers as tools, people driven design, means what??? I was taught something kinda old-fashioned: the most important part is not the people only, nor the software only, nor the hardware only. It was building an information flow and communications and correlating and aggregating with minimal loss system. That means that poeple have to be a huge part of the design, that one person's best system will never be all people's best system (because we are individuals who think individually and guranteed DIFFERENTLY), and that the best system is not just the best person fitted to the best hardware and software.
Think of it this way if your mind does not bridge the gap I left there deliberately-- which is more important, the client or the servant??? Well, the person buying the service makes the servant able to eat and drink better things the way things work here on earth. So the server should determine which servant with what qualities to hire-- and what tools fit his hands best, and what procedures he can both learn and do in the least amount of time and remember easiest. The servant needs to fit the one being served or there will be lots of frustration.
So, does the person who wants service buy anything and mold him or herself to what that thing does??? NOT! Should, then, he change his or her ways radically to use a computer as a thing that tells him or her what to do??? Equally not, IMHO.
Given I think different than you, I have different physical limits than you, a machine designed for me that works best for me will not be the one that works best for you. Guaranteed. 100% so.Anyone that says so lies, IMHO.
We can say this aspect is obviously better, or that, but to be useful to all we need to discuss also why we think so. why??? Good ideas drive good design.
Best design flows the info we can best understand with the least frustration at the speed we can handle it with the least extraneous (extra and unneeded)info at the speed we can take it in, but as individuals rather than as a whole. And it does it most consistently that way, or we need to look at the new mouse trap and evaluate it for ourselves.
That means one person's poorest choice might be someone else's best choice. And that gotchas are more likely to be human related somehow without being universally wrong. So let's also include human factors as real relevant to our discussions.
And if someone says "that stinks," ask "why?" and then maybe see how others think and what you can learn instead of ever getting personal.
And not being afraid to tell why helps. And not being afraid to see that in the other person's shoes this makes sense-- though for them, and not necessarily for you. And they need to do the same.
The best computer, I will put to you for thought and reaction after saying the above, is the one that lets me best accomplish my legit goals. Since I am an individual, I need to choose how to measure best, because best in a system is what meshes best-- and I am big part of system. And thank heavens I am not universally right or I would be totally bored.
That is the spirit I perceive here, thanks for putting up with me. And I welcome and encourage your reactions.
John Danielson.