5 ms·
> In five years, McBride said, companies will have to ensure they're matching their enabling technology to the demographic of that time. The idea that you have
by 6d0debc071 13y ago
> In five years, McBride said, companies will have to ensure they're matching their enabling technology to the demographic of that time.
The idea that you have to match your tech to the user in a company (at least that closely) is a little bit silly. If they're not smart enough to learn to use your new tech, they're not smart enough to work there at all. Fire them.
Unless it's like a burger bar or something I suppose. But really, they're adults. This sort of 'All our works are mentally retarded' shtick is getting a bit old.
- _delirium 13y agoNot all technologies are equivalent though. Different tech can have different learning curves, and the shape/length of the learning curve for the same technology can vary for different populations or types of work. I agree that competent employees should be able to learn any technology you choose, given sufficient time and training. But if you can do so without sacrificing other important goals, typically a company will want to choose stuff that their particular set of employees can learn more quickly, in a less error-prone way, and with less training needed. To take an extreme case, if a particular interface requires strong working knowledge of Python scripting to use effectively, and your employees include a number of people who've never programmed before, then the time and resources needed to train them up may be large. On the other hand, if most of your employees are already Python programmers, it may not be an issue at all.
- 6d0debc071 13y agoWell, by reasonable context. I'm sure we can all come up with fringe cases where the thing's just a UI disaster. For any reasonably designed bit of software though, it's hard to imagine it being hard to use - especially when you've already used something in the same general class.