www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Re: Stupid little iota of an idea

reply foobar <foo bar.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:

 On 2/11/11 7:07 AM, foobar wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:

 I don't find the name "iota" stupid.

 Andrei

Of course _you_ don't. However practically all the users _do_ find it poorly named, including other developers in the project.. This is the umpteenth time this comes up in the NG and incidentally this is the only reason I know what the function does. If the users think the name is stupid than it really is. That's how usability works and the fact the you think otherwise or that it might be more accurate mathematically is really not relevant. If you want D/Phobos to be used by other people besides yourself you need to cater for their requirements.

Not all users dislike iota, and besides arguments ad populum are fallacious. Iota rocks. But have at it - vote away, and I'll be glad if a better name for iota comes about. Andrei

Usability seems to be Achilles' heel of D and is a recurrent theme on the NG. Usability cannot be mathematically deduced even though you seem to try hard to do just that. This reminds me the story of a Google designer that quit the company, being frustrated by the engineering mind-set of the company. He gave many amusing examples of a complete lack of understanding of design principals such as choosing the shade of blue by doing a "scientific" comparison of a thousand different shades. could we for once put aside otherwise valid implementation concerns such as efficiency and mathematical correctness and treat usability as valid important concern? Could we for once accept that The users' opinion is not "fallacious" and have a user oriented design is not a bad thing or are we implementing for the sake of boosting ones own ego and nothing else?
Feb 13 2011
next sibling parent reply Lutger Blijdestijn <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:
foobar wrote:

 Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
 
 On 2/11/11 7:07 AM, foobar wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:

 I don't find the name "iota" stupid.

 Andrei

Of course _you_ don't. However practically all the users _do_ find it poorly named, including other developers in the project.. This is the umpteenth time this comes up in the NG and incidentally this is the only reason I know what the function does. If the users think the name is stupid than it really is. That's how usability works and the fact the you think otherwise or that it might be more accurate mathematically is really not relevant. If you want D/Phobos to be used by other people besides yourself you need to cater for their requirements.

Not all users dislike iota, and besides arguments ad populum are fallacious. Iota rocks. But have at it - vote away, and I'll be glad if a better name for iota comes about. Andrei

Usability seems to be Achilles' heel of D and is a recurrent theme on the NG. Usability cannot be mathematically deduced even though you seem to try hard to do just that. This reminds me the story of a Google designer that quit the company, being frustrated by the engineering mind-set of the company. He gave many amusing examples of a complete lack of understanding of design principals such as choosing the shade of blue by doing a "scientific" comparison of a thousand different shades. could we for once put aside otherwise valid implementation concerns such as efficiency and mathematical correctness and treat usability as valid important concern? Could we for once accept that The users' opinion is not "fallacious" and have a user oriented design is not a bad thing or are we implementing for the sake of boosting ones own ego and nothing else?

first rule of usability: don't listen to users http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20010805.html
Feb 13 2011
next sibling parent reply foobar <foo bar.com> writes:
Lutger Blijdestijn Wrote:

 
 first rule of usability: don't listen to users
 
 http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20010805.html
 

I fail to see how that page ( which talks about website design ) applies to what I've said. It says that you should look at what people _do_ instead of what they _say_. How would you apply this to Phobos' naming conventions? How about this: Show a code sample using "iota" to users who never programmed in D and ask them what that code does.
Feb 13 2011
parent Lutger Blijdestijn <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:
foobar wrote:

 Lutger Blijdestijn Wrote:
 
 
 first rule of usability: don't listen to users
 
 http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20010805.html
 

I fail to see how that page ( which talks about website design ) applies to what I've said. It says that you should look at what people _do_ instead of what they _say_. How would you apply this to Phobos' naming conventions?

Quite literally. The thing is, most average joe users like me don't know what's good for them. They don't understand usability directly but rather 'know it when they see it.' Of course it is too time-consuming / has too little pay-off to conduct experiments for everything.
 How about this:
 Show a code sample using "iota" to users who never programmed in D and ask
 them what that code does.

Exactly, that's a very good idea.
Feb 13 2011
prev sibling parent spir <denis.spir gmail.com> writes:
On 02/13/2011 01:17 PM, foobar wrote:
 Lutger Blijdestijn Wrote:

 first rule of usability: don't listen to users

 http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20010805.html

I fail to see how that page ( which talks about website design ) applies to what I've said. It says that you should look at what people _do_ instead of what they _say_. How would you apply this to Phobos' naming conventions?

Agreed. I know a bit this design guru's work. The titles of his articles are often misleading, even more out of context. What he point to is the common practice of design team managers taking decisions based on studies about users just giving an advice after a superficial look on the design's appearance; often without any trial at using the interface, not to say real usability experiments. To re-center on the case of this thread, I'm 99% sure this guy (the guru) would certainly carefully listen to comments from "power-user" who have past experience on using other interfaces providing similar functionality, and have really tried using the new one for a while.
 How about this:
 Show a code sample using "iota" to users who never programmed in D and ask
them what that code does.

Agreed. On the other hand, I also agree with people stating good design mirrors some/one/'s vision... Denis -- _________________ vita es estrany spir.wikidot.com
Feb 13 2011
prev sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 2/13/11 3:15 AM, foobar wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:

 On 2/11/11 7:07 AM, foobar wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:

 I don't find the name "iota" stupid.

 Andrei

Of course _you_ don't. However practically all the users _do_ find it poorly named, including other developers in the project.. This is the umpteenth time this comes up in the NG and incidentally this is the only reason I know what the function does. If the users think the name is stupid than it really is. That's how usability works and the fact the you think otherwise or that it might be more accurate mathematically is really not relevant. If you want D/Phobos to be used by other people besides yourself you need to cater for their requirements.

Not all users dislike iota, and besides arguments ad populum are fallacious. Iota rocks. But have at it - vote away, and I'll be glad if a better name for iota comes about. Andrei

Usability seems to be Achilles' heel of D and is a recurrent theme on the NG. Usability cannot be mathematically deduced even though you seem to try hard to do just that.

I think it would be a bit of an exaggeration to characterize the choice of name "iota" as an impediment to usability. I'd agree if it were an endemic problem, but generally I think the choice of names in Phobos is adequate.
 This reminds me the story of a Google designer that quit the company,
 being frustrated by the engineering mind-set of the company. He gave
 many amusing examples of a complete lack of understanding of design
 principals such as choosing the shade of blue by doing a "scientific"
 comparison of a thousand different shades.

"Principles"!!! "Principles"!!! I hate that typo.
 could we for once put aside otherwise valid implementation concerns
 such as efficiency and mathematical correctness and treat usability
 as valid important concern? Could we for once accept that The users'
 opinion is not "fallacious" and have a user oriented design is not a
 bad thing or are we implementing for the sake of boosting ones own
 ego and nothing else?

I've already mentioned: I'm ready to change this name and others if consensus comes about. Generally efficiency and mathematical correctness don't clash badly with choice of names, so probably you're referring to something beyond that - just let us know. Andrei
Feb 13 2011
parent foobar <foo bar.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:

 On 2/13/11 3:15 AM, foobar wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:

 On 2/11/11 7:07 AM, foobar wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:

 I don't find the name "iota" stupid.

 Andrei

Of course _you_ don't. However practically all the users _do_ find it poorly named, including other developers in the project.. This is the umpteenth time this comes up in the NG and incidentally this is the only reason I know what the function does. If the users think the name is stupid than it really is. That's how usability works and the fact the you think otherwise or that it might be more accurate mathematically is really not relevant. If you want D/Phobos to be used by other people besides yourself you need to cater for their requirements.

Not all users dislike iota, and besides arguments ad populum are fallacious. Iota rocks. But have at it - vote away, and I'll be glad if a better name for iota comes about. Andrei

Usability seems to be Achilles' heel of D and is a recurrent theme on the NG. Usability cannot be mathematically deduced even though you seem to try hard to do just that.

I think it would be a bit of an exaggeration to characterize the choice of name "iota" as an impediment to usability. I'd agree if it were an endemic problem, but generally I think the choice of names in Phobos is adequate.

It's not just a one time thing with one function name. There is a reoccurring pattern with function names and other such aspects and it doesn't need to be endemic in order to be looked at and improved. It's not just the naming (which I don't think is adequate), it's other things too such as the organization & categorization of the code in Phobos, the web-site (already being worked on), the tool-chain could be improved, etc. I'm mostly complaining about the parts where there is little to no improvements.
 This reminds me the story of a Google designer that quit the company,
 being frustrated by the engineering mind-set of the company. He gave
 many amusing examples of a complete lack of understanding of design
 principals such as choosing the shade of blue by doing a "scientific"
 comparison of a thousand different shades.

"Principles"!!! "Principles"!!! I hate that typo.

Excuse me but I'm not a native English speaker and the spell check missed that.
 
 could we for once put aside otherwise valid implementation concerns
 such as efficiency and mathematical correctness and treat usability
 as valid important concern? Could we for once accept that The users'
 opinion is not "fallacious" and have a user oriented design is not a
 bad thing or are we implementing for the sake of boosting ones own
 ego and nothing else?

I've already mentioned: I'm ready to change this name and others if consensus comes about. Generally efficiency and mathematical correctness don't clash badly with choice of names, so probably you're referring to something beyond that - just let us know. Andrei

Feb 13 2011