4 ms·
No, that sounds inefficient for one of the parties - the provider. The provider isn't using the software to get work done, and doesn't incur training costs, etc
by stan_rogers 6y ago
No, that sounds inefficient for one of the parties - the provider. The provider isn't using the software to get work done, and doesn't incur training costs, etc. The provider's pet efficiencies cost the users real money (in the "a million here, a million there, and pretty soon you're talking real money" sense).
- chrisseaton 6y agoI can’t imagine any software update so drastic as to require ‘training costs’. Most reasonable people can figure out where a menu item has moved to.
- gsich 6y agoMaybe if you use that program daily.
- dayjobpork 6y agoHave you ever used any complex software, especially aimed at specific skills / occupations? It's like they throw darts at balloons to randomly select which UI elements are being moved each release. I've used Word every day for years and I still struggle to remember where uncommon functions are in the ribbon. Going from an older Photoshop to the most recent, finding the correct icon means I have to stop and figure out what it is now, slowing me down. I flat out cannot figure out the new Photoshop start up interface and immediately reenable the old one. Every person at work who upgraded to Office that changed the Save UI to the online shit absolutely flipped their shit. Software companies are forever forcing unwanted changes on users who use the software all the time, and it absolutely and costs time and money to retrain staff to be able to keep doing the work they were already trained to do. No user or company wants existing functionality changed
- nordsieck 6y ago> I can’t imagine any software update so drastic as to require ‘training costs’. Both Windows and Office were notorious for this. > Most reasonable people can figure out where a menu item has moved to. As it turns out, many people who do low skill computer work do not adapt to change well.