John Burski wrote:
> > I really don't understand why people expect computers to do everything
> > for them, the burden of using tools properly belongs to the user.
> Let the congregation say "Amen!"
The counterpoints:
(Complex tool)
A car comes assembled, from the factory, tuned to accelerate, and drive,
at the speeds that most users would *desire*. If it was factory tuned
for maximum safety, it would have a maximum speed of around 5 miles
per hour, wait 30 seconds after turning on a signal before allowing
you to make a drastic steering change, etc. If it was tuned for
maximum racing speed, it would kill most new users in a day or less.
(Simple Tool)
A hammer comes from the factory ready for multipurpose use. Were
is set up for "maximum safety", it would include a thumb protector,
a warning sound when it was swung too quickly, a rubber claw guard
to prevent backswing injury, etc. It is sold in it's most dangerous
state, and there is an assumption that if you're using the tool,
you already know how to use it safely, the burden of that use is
on the user.
I would not say a database is a simple tool, and it is also not
a tool which would injure or maim its new users if tuned for
perfomance. It may lose data, but not sever limbs or cause
permanent paralysis (unlike a hammer or a car can).
Advanced tools do have advanced safety features, but are sold "ready
for most use", not "safely disabled until you read all of the manuals
so you can figure out how to make it work decently". I agree that
reading the manuals is an important part of learning a new tool,
but it shouldn't be *required* to make it work for basic use.
Users shouldn't have to know how to tune the fuel injection system
for *optimum* performance in order to take a car for a test drive
on a fast roadway.
Computer software is, indeed, a tool which does not do everything
for you. But is should come "from the factory" setup for the way
a user would expect it to run, not partially disabled for maximum
safety. It's a power tool, and it can "hurt" if misused. If that's
too much responsibility for a bad user, it won't matter how safely
it's been tuned at the factory, the bad user will *still* modify it
in unsafe ways, and often tune it or use it the wrong way, damaging
the tool in the process.
I don't expect my software to come optimized for my use. I expect
it to come optimized for the most users and uses, not "dumbed down"
for the worst case, or "safely disabled" for the worst users.
-Ron
--
Personal: ron@opus1.com, 520-326-6109, http://www.opus1.com/ron/
Work: rchmara@pnsinc.com, 520-546-8993, http://www.pnsinc.com/
The opinions expressed in this email are not neccesarrily those of myself,
my employers, or any of the other little voices in my head.
