4 ms·

When there's a compromise between user and developer happiness, remember the developer is usually the one picking. So it's understandable that users often do a

When there's a compromise between user and developer happiness, remember the developer is usually the one picking. So it's understandable that users often do an end-run around what they choose.

jrapdx3 11y ago
Of course it can happen that the developer doesn't adequately address the users' concerns, perhaps it's impossible to do, or more likely, the developer wasn't really listening. So yes, the end-runs could be understandable. If the developer understands the user issues, and takes the trouble to mitigate the situation, it's a lot less likely end-runs would be attempted. Any case, the smart developer knows there's a message intrinsic to end-runs, something isn't working and the developer's part of teamwork to see what can be done about it.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
> remember the developer is usually the one picking. I wish. Point me to such a company. Quite often it's the management that's picking, which ensures that neither users nor developers are happy. A developer would at least pick something that works and makes some sense.
fauigerzigerk 11y ago
I think it is rarely a tradeoff of happiness. Most of the time it is about finding out what the right thing is and then doing it and explaining it well. I think the reason why it often isn't done like that is twofold. First, there are many incompetent, sloppy developers who just don't care. Second, users are unwilling to pay for the time it takes a competent, unsloppy developer to do the work properly. For instance, it is not impossible to design an address entry form that accepts unusual but correct addresses and at the same time captures as much structure as possible. Not impossible, but surprisingly difficult if you think about it. You would think that it's economic rationality that leads to sloppy design and hence to the need for free form text fields. Maybe it just doesn't make sense to design everything with great care? But I don't think that is true. 90% of the time I needed to phone in to a support line was about issues that a slightly better website could have provided easily. Bad software costs them hugely in terms of support and user satisfaction. It's plain to see that the good companies do get their data entry fields right and bad ones don't. I bet you could even predict share prices of companies based on the quality of their most trivial data entry forms.

When there's a compromise between user and developer happiness, remember the developer is usually the one picking. So it's understandable that users often do an end-run around what they choose.

jrapdx3 11y ago

Of course it can happen that the developer doesn't adequately address the users' concerns, perhaps it's impossible to do, or more likely, the developer wasn't really listening. So yes, the end-runs could be understandable. If the developer understands the user issues, and takes the trouble to mitigate the situation, it's a lot less likely end-runs would be attempted. Any case, the smart developer knows there's a message intrinsic to end-runs, something isn't working and the developer's part of teamwork to see what can be done about it.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

> remember the developer is usually the one picking. I wish. Point me to such a company. Quite often it's the management that's picking, which ensures that neither users nor developers are happy. A developer would at least pick something that works and makes some sense.

fauigerzigerk 11y ago

I think it is rarely a tradeoff of happiness. Most of the time it is about finding out what the right thing is and then doing it and explaining it well. I think the reason why it often isn't done like that is twofold. First, there are many incompetent, sloppy developers who just don't care. Second, users are unwilling to pay for the time it takes a competent, unsloppy developer to do the work properly. For instance, it is not impossible to design an address entry form that accepts unusual but correct addresses and at the same time captures as much structure as possible. Not impossible, but surprisingly difficult if you think about it. You would think that it's economic rationality that leads to sloppy design and hence to the need for free form text fields. Maybe it just doesn't make sense to design everything with great care? But I don't think that is true. 90% of the time I needed to phone in to a support line was about issues that a slightly better website could have provided easily. Bad software costs them hugely in terms of support and user satisfaction. It's plain to see that the good companies do get their data entry fields right and bad ones don't. I bet you could even predict share prices of companies based on the quality of their most trivial data entry forms.