Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
One problem I have with a modern office is that people still tend to create physical copies of digital media (such as program manuals and specifications). I understand that for somethings it is prudent to create a physical copy but many of these physical copies go mostly unused, they just sit on a shelf to maybe one day be flipped through to look up a single piece of information. This is not only a waste of paper but also space and the time that it takes to print out and collate all of these printed documents. It also takes more time to utilize because these items are not capable of being indexed and searched like digital copies.
What are some good ways to promote a paperless environment in the workplace? My company has already implemented a company Wiki. So far the it seems to have made an impact on our use of paper, but some people still think of it as being too much of a hassle.
It won't work for everybody, for sure, but I recently spent a year at a small web development company (under 25 employees) that had no printers and no copiers. Only the owner had one little printer in his locked office. Since they never had any printers or copiers, their work patterns had evolved to not use paper.
This was such a shock to me, as I traditionally work with a lot of paper. I use it to partly control my own workflow -- if it needs to be done, there's a piece of paper (email, Word doc, printed-out bug tracker task) on my desk about it. I'd make notes on the document about the steps I needed to do to complete the task.
Of course, we used a bug tracking/change control system. So, all of my to-do's for my web coding were in that system.
I learned to organize my email better, and to have a good file folder structure in Windows. Ironically, I was more meticulous about deleting unnecessary electronic documents. I only kept the useful stuff. My email inbox was always empty, because everything got promptly moved to a folder.
Everybody's desk was really clean, and we had no file drawers. We did all have at least two monitors.
Distribute documents electronically (e.g. Sharepoint) and charge people to print something out. Make sure people have nice, big screens so they can easily read text on screen and LCDs so the refresh rate doesn't hurt their eyes.
Get rid of the printers.
Seriously.
I realize that's not realistic. I've tried to help my wife's store go paperless and that's just 4 employees but because the printer is still there they just won't do it. It helped that I set the default printer on all the workstations to print to a Windows share using a PDF writer print driver so some of the problem is solved (we have a few boxes of daily sales reports in her office which fortunately are no longer generated).
My company brings laptops to our Monday status meetings and then has printed copies of the agenda circulated (which we all have a copy of in email). You just can't win really.
As others have mentioned, you may not win, but if your general inclination is to go green, tips and tricks can be found at my friend's blog:
Green User Group
Don't.
I find having a manual or programming reference a lot more useful when I can have it laying open on my desk next to me rather than tabbing back and forth between that and Eclipse and all the other stuff I have open at once. Besides, I like being able to stuff post-its all over the place, underline important passages, etc. Losing the ability to grep the document really isn't an issue. If it's a reference that I know well, I won't have any problem finding the passage I need, and then it will be handily on my desk where I just glance over rather than moving windows around on the screen.
If, for some reason, this is something you REALLY need to do, get rid of the printers and give your developers two or three large LCDs each. I think a better alternative is to set the printers to do automatic duplexing, and provide a comb binder in the copy room. That will encourage people to treat the printouts as "books", rather than a stack of paper that ends up getting thrown out at some point. Rather than throwing the packet out when they are done, it goes on their bookshelf and they pull it out again when they realize they still need it, rather than printing another copy.
If you're so concerned about being "green", buy recycled paper and have more recycle bins than trash cans. Make it easier to recycle than to throw away.
Go buy yourself a really good document scanner. You will always have some amount of incoming paper, if you can easily convert those to digital it will help greatly. I'd recommend a Fujitsu ScanSnap 510.
And make sure you have really good damn backups :)
This all depends on personal preference. Some people like to read on computer screen. But some people might do not prefer screen. They tend to take the print out of every possible thing.
IMO you can promote the use of duplex printing. Infact printing multiple pages on same A4 sheet. This should reduce the wastage to some limit.
Otherwise I know a company which publishes the weekly list of people who got maximum print outs on working areas. This will certainly discourage some people who just take a print out for the sake of taking print out.
Just because you prefer not to use paper doesn't mean that everyone else can work effectively that way. Some of us find the screen hard to read at times. My boyfriend who recently died couldn't read a resolution smaller than 800X600. That means you can't really see much at one time on the screen.
Personally if I am trying to find something like where a missing end should go in a long stored proc, I find that I can see it much faster by printing the whole thing out and looking at it that way. Plus I find it handier to take notes on a piece of paper than an electronic document.
Also, I read extremely quickly, I can read a document probably 3-4 times faster on paper than on screen (in part becasue I don't have to stop to scroll). Yeah I have a big enough monitor to see a whole page at a time, but with my bifocals, I can't actually read it when the type is that small. Why should I waste my time reading on screen when paper is faster for large documents? And if I need to reference back and forth between pages while reading, it is much faster to flip to a page than to search for it electronically.
And remember not everyone has large monitors or the dual monitors that many developers have. They therefore can't see much on the screen at one time and can't see two pages of a document pulled up simulataneously when they need to refer back and forth while reading.
So basically what I'm saying is that paperless offices are less efficient for many people which is why they aren't really popular.
Fire.
(sorry couldn't resist)
Getting rid of printer adn copiers would force everyone to go paperless, but I don't think it is a ideal solution. I would recommend setting up a good recycling program instead. Paper is easily recycled. Also most paper today comes from managed forests. The impact on the environment is minimal. Also get some good scanners, OCR software, and set up servers with plenty of storage to work as virtual filing cabinets.
I like paper, and I think it's the best surface for reading. In my opinion, you shouldn't ban printing - or force the office to go paperless.
Instead, maybe you could encourage reuse. Once a document has been printed and read - distribute it to colleagues who might also need it. The 'round-robin envelope' (for want of a better name) is a feature of many traditional office environments which is pretty good in this respect.
Also print double sided.
First of all, everybody needs to be using LCD, as it is easier to read off of.
Second, tell everybody they can get a second LCD, only if they promise to not print stuff they can read on their LCD.
Also give a short lesson on how to use two monitors effectively. (Mostly, one for main work, second for reading)
Related
I try to devote certain time everyday to learn new skills while also improve the older skills that I've gained. But, I'm not hitting the sweet spot where I learn what I want and get things done.
So, I was just curious to know how you guys spend time everyday and "hit the spot".
I use Google reader and just add more and more tech blogs as I find them. Then, I read them in the morning with coffee. This site provides quite a bit of education as well.
I read technical websites everyday. I like to use Google reader as well since it tracks what I've read and allows me to easily continue where I left off from any computer I happen to have access to.
I started out with the basics : Slashdot, Ars Technica
, and Dr. Dobb's Journal. These sites will frequently lead to other great sources of information.
When following sites like this using an RSS feed, you don't have to read every article that comes through. Just scan them over and read the ones that catch your interest. Without realizing it, you will store away alot of information that will pop back into your head when you encounter a situation that triggers it.
You won't necessarily be a master of everything you read but you will be at least aware of current developments and technologies.
The second part is to practice. I usually have some simple and enjoyable programming project on the go at home all the time. I may not actually complete anything useful but I use it as a basis to try out new things. Alot of times I will encounter a problem at work and find that I've already explored some of the solutions at home or at least thought about them and will be able to make a much more informed decision.
Tech blogs are a great way to find out basic information on new material and sometimes they will even have a more in-depth feature that can leave you with some take-away knowledge than just another tech headline.
What works best for me is to identify topics that I have read in tech blogs that interest me and then find sources that provide me with more advanced information on the subject. Then as the week goes by spend however much time needed to digest the information learning the material.
Just browsing tech headlines all day, in my opinion, won't leave you with any distilled information beyond basic advances in technology. Actually diving in and spending X amount of time each day learning material that is interesting to you will be infinitely better.
I find the key to getting things done is to manage distrations. I process email in batches only once or twice per day, and try to avoid phone calls, meetings and IM where I can. This leaves me bigger chinks of time available for development.
I learn new skills in a couple of different ways... Firstly reading a load of developmetn related tech blogs via an RSS reader. This allows me to absorb a continuous flow of new ideas without necessarily "learning" a lot, but saves me a lot of time on research later. Then when I run into something new, chances are something I've already read will be of assistance and I can dig in an "learn" something in more detail.
e.g. Through regular RSS reading I became aware that a significant number of javascript frameworks had been developed and it seemed to make more sense to use a js framework than coding DOM manipulation by hand. Later when I started a new project that was going to be heavy on Ajax, I was able to name a couple of frameworks off the top of my head,quickly pick one and really dig in and get to know it.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
How can our team gather requirements from our "Product Owner" in as low friction yet useable of a way as possible?
Now here's the guidelines- No posts that it can't be done or that the business needs to make a decision that it cares about quality, yada yada. The product I work for is a small group that has been successful for years. I just want to help them step it up a notch.
Basically, I'm on a 6 or 7 person team with one Product Owner. She does a great job but is juggling a few different roles (as I believe is common on extremely small teams). Usually requirements are given at sporadic times (email convos, face to face discussions, meetings, etc). They are never entered into a system and sometimes this results in features missing a release or the release getting pushed back since everyone forgot about the necessary feature.
If you're in a similar situation but you found a way to overcome this, I'd love to hear it. I'm happy to write code to help ease this situation but it can't be a web site that the Product Owner has to go to in order to get anything done. She is extremely busy and we need some way of working together as a team in order to gather these requirements.
I'm currently thinking of something like this: Developers and team members gather requirements discussed in face to face meetings and write some quick notes on the features discussed on a wiki page. Product owner is notified whenever these pages are updated and it then becomes her responsibility to ensure accuracy.
Pros: We'll have some record of the features. Cons: The developers are taking responsibility for something that they ordinarily wouldn't. I'm okay with that here. I think in this situation it's teamwork.
Of course once we do this, then we're going to see that the product owner probably doesn't have enough time to ensure feature accuracy. Ultimately she is overburdened and I think this will help showcase that fact, but I just need to be able to draw attention to that first.
So any suggestions?
P.S. her time is extremely limited so it is considered unreasonable to expect her to need to type in the requirements after discussion. She only has time to discuss them once and move on.
Although the concept of "product owner" is a littl ambiguous to me, I think I am working in very similar circumstances: the customer is extremely buzy and always is a bottleneck in developing requirements.
On the surface, what we try to do in this situation is quite obvious and seemingly simple: we try to make sure that the customer is involved in "read-only / talk-only" mode. No writing. Minimum reading. Mostly talking.
The devil, of course, is in details. So, here are some specifics about our process (in no particular order):
We often start from recording problem statements, which are the ultimate sources of requirements. In fact, sometimes a problem statement is all that we record initially, just to make sure it does not get lost.
NB: It is important to distinguish problem statements from requirements. Although a problem statement sometimes clearly implies some requirement, in general a single problem statement may yield a whole bunch of requirements (each having its own severity and priority); moreover, sometimes a given requirement my define a solution (usually just a partial one) to multiple problems.
One of the main reasons of recording problem statements (and this is very relevant to your question!) is that semantically they are somewhat "closer to the customer's skin" and more stable than requirements derived from them. I believe those problem statements make it much easier and quicker to put the customer into proper context whenever he has time to provide feedback to the development team.
We do record all the requirements (and back-track them to problem statements), regardless of when are we going to implement them. Priorities govern the order in which requirements get implemented. Of course, they also govern the order in which customer reviews unfinished requirements.
NB: A single fat document containing all requirements is an absolute no-no! All the requirements are placed in "problem tracking database", along with bug reports. (A bug is just a special case of a problem in our book.)
We always try to do our best to minimize the number of iterations necessary to "finalize" each requirement (or a group of related requirements). Ideally, a customer should have to review a requirement only once.
Whenever the first review turns out to be insufficient (happens all the time), and the requirement in question is complex enough to require a lot of text and/or illustrations, we make sure that the customer does not have to re-read everything from scratch. All the important changes/additions/deletions since the previous reviwed version are highlighted.
While a problem or requirement remains in an unfinished state, all the open issues (mostly questions to customer) are embedded into the document and highlighted. As a result, whenever the customer has time to review requirements, he does not have to call a meeting and solicit questions from the team; instead the customer can open any unfinished document first, see what exactly is expected from him, and then decide what's the best way and time (for him) to address any of the open issues. Sometimes the customer chooses to write a email or add a comment directly to the problem document.
We try our best to establish and maintain official domain vocabulary (even if it gets scattered across the documentation). Most importantly, we practically force the customer to stick to that vocabulary.
NB: This is one of the most difficult parts of the process, and customer tries to "rebel" from time to time. However, at the end of the day everybody agrees that it is the only way to make precious meetings with the customer as efficient as possible. If you ever attended one-hour meetings where 30 minutes were being spent just to get everybody on the same page (again), I'm sure you would appreciate having a vocabulary.
NB: Whenever possible, any changes in the official vocabulary get reflected in the very next release of the software.
Sometimes, a given problem can be solved in multiple ways, and the right choice is not obvious without consulting with the customer. It means that there will be a "menu of requirements" for the customer to pick from. We document such "menus", not just the finally chosen requirement.
This may seem controversial and look like an unnecessary overhead. However, this approach saves a lot of time whenever the customer (usually few weeks or months down the road) suddenly jumps in with a question like "why the heck did we do it this way and not that way?" Also, it is not such a big deal to hide "rejected branches" using proper organization/formatting of requirements documentation. Boring but doable. :-)
NB: When preparing "menus of requirements", it is very important not to overdo them. Too many choices or too many choice nesting levels - and the next review may require much more customer's time than really necessary. Needless to say that the time spent on elaborated branches may be totally wasted. Yes, it is difficult to find some balance here (it greatly depends on the always-in-a-hurry customer's ability to think two or more steps ahead and do it quickly). But, what can I say? If you really want to do your job well, I am sure that after some time you will find the right balance. :-)
Our customer is a very "visual" guy. Therefore, whenever we discuss any significant user interface elements, screen mockups (or even lightweight prototypes) often are extremely helpful. Real time savers sometimes!
NB: We do screen mockups exclusively for the customer, only in order to facilitate discussions. They may be used by developers too, but in no way do they substitute user interface specifications! More often than not, there are some very important UI details that get specified in writing (now - primarily for developers).
We are lucky enough to have a customer with a very technical background. So we do not hesitate to use UML diagrams as discussion aid. All kinds of UML diagrams - as long as they help customer to get into proper context quicker and stay there.
I am talking about requirements-level UML diagrams, of course. Not about implementation-level ones. I believe that even not very technical people can start digging requirements-level UML diagrams sooner or later; you just have to be patient and know what to put on a diagram.
Obviously, the cost of such process greatly depends on analytical and writing skills of the team, and of course on the tools that you have at your disposal. And I must admit that in our case this process appears to be quite expensive and slow. But, taking into account the very low rate of bugs and low rate of "vapor-features"... I think, in the long run, we get very good payback.
FWIW: According to Joel's nice classification of software products, this project is an "internal" one. So we can afford to be as agile as our customer can handle. :-)
"Developers and team members gather requirements discussed in face to face meetings and write some quick notes"
Start with that. If you aren't taking notes, just make one small change. Take Notes. Later, you might post them to a wiki or create a feature backlog or start using Scrum or bugzilla or something.
First, however, make small changes. Write stuff down sounds like something you're not doing, so just do that and see what improves and what you can do next. Be Agile. Work Incrementally.
You might want to be careful of the HiPPO in the room. The Highest Paid Person's Opinion is not always a good one. We've tended to focus more on providing great tools and support for developers. These things, done right, take some of the hassle out of development, so that it becomes faster and more fun. Developers are then more flexible in terms of their workload, and more amenable to late-breaking changes.
One-Click testing and deployment are a couple of good ones to start with; make sure every developer can run up their own software stack in a few seconds and try out ideas directly. Developers are then able to make revisions quickly or run down side paths they find interesting, and these paths are often the most successful. And by successful I mean measured success based on real metrics gathered right in the system and made readily available to all concerned. The owner is then able to set the metrics, which they probably care about, rather than the requirements, which they either don't care about or have no experience in defining.
Of course it depends on the owner and your particular situation, but we've found that metrics are easier to discuss than requirements, and that developers are pretty good at interpreting them too. A typical problem might be that customers seem to spend a long time filling their shopping carts but don't go on to checkout.
1) A marketing requirement might be to make the checkout button bigger and redder. 2) The CEO's requirement might be to take the customer straight to checkout, as the CEO only ever buys one item at a time anyway. 3) The UI designer's requirement might be to place a second checkout button at the top of the cart as well as the existing one at the bottom. 4) The developer's requirement might be some Web 2.0 AJAX widget that follows the mouse pointer around the screen. Who's right?
Who cares... the customer probably saw the ridiculous cost of delivery and ran away. But redefine the problem as a metric, instead of a requirement, and suddenly the developer becomes interested. The developer doesn't have to do 10 rounds with the CMO on what shade of red the button should be. He can play with his Web 2.0 thing all week, and then rush off the other 3 solutions on Monday morning. Each one gets deployed live for 48 hours and the cart-to-checkout rate gets measured and reported instantly. None of it makes any difference, but the developer got to do their job and the business shifts it's focus onto the crappy products they sell and the price they gauge on delivery.
Well, ok, so the example is contrived. There's a lot of work in there to make sure that the project is small, the team is experienced, hot deployment is simple, instant rollback is provided, and that everyone's on board. What we wanted to get to is a state where the developer's full potential is not wasted, so that's why they're involved not just from the start, but also in the success. Start out with an issue like the number of clicks during registration is too high, run it through a design committee, and we found that the number of clicks actually went up in the design specification. That was our experience anyway. But leave the developer some freedom to just reduce the number of clicks and you might actually end up with a patented solution, as we did. Not that the developer cares about patents, but it had merit - and no clicks!
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
We're neck deep in a project right now, schedules are tight (but reasonable). Our general strategy is to get a strong beta done, release it for testing, and get feedback from our testers.
Quite frequently, we're being hit by small things that spiral into long, time-costing discussions. They all boil down to one thing: While we know what features we need, we are having trouble with the little details, things like 'where should this message go' and 'do they need this feedback immediately, or will it break their flow, so we should hold off'?
These are all things that our testers SHOULD catch, but
a) Each 'low priority' bug like this drains time from critical issues
b) We want to have as strong a product as possible
and
c) Even the best testing group will miss things from time to time.
We use our product, and we know how our users use the old version...but we're all at a loss as to how to think like a user when we try to use the new version (which has significant graphical as well as underlying changes).
edit - a bit more background:
We're writing a web app used by a widely-distributed base of users. Our app is a big part of their jobs, but not the biggest (and, of course, we only matter to them when it doesn't work). Getting actual users in to use our product is difficult, as we're geographically distant from the nearest location that serves as an end user (We're in Ohio, and I think the nearest location we serve is 3+ hours away).
The closest we can get is our Customer Service team (who have been a big help, really) but they don't really think like the users either. They also serve as our testers (it really motivates them to find bugs when they know that any they DON'T find may mean a big upswing in number of calls). We've had three (of about 12 total) customer service reps back here most of the week doing some preliminary testing...they've gotten involved in the discussions as well.
Watching someone using the app is a huge benefit to me. Possibly someone who is not entirely familiar with it.
Seeing how they try to navigate, how they try to enter information or size windows. Things we take for granted after creating/running the app hour after hour, day after day.
Users will always try and do things you never expected and watching them in action might bring to light how you can change something that might have seemed minor, but really makes a big impact on them.
Read Don't make me think.
Speaking generally, you can't. There's not any way you can turn off the "programmer" part of your brain and think like a user.
And you're right about (c), testing groups don't necessarily catch all the bugs. But the best thing you can do is get a testing group comprised of real, honest-to-goodness end users, and value their feedback. Draw further conclusions from their general comments.
If you want to know how your users will see your system, the closest you can get is usability testing with real users. Everything else is just heuristics and experience, and is also subject to error. There's no such thing as a bug-free product, but you should be able to get a "strong" product with usability testing.
Buy a cheap, easy to use video camera and record your testers using the app. Even better, get some people unfamiliar with the app. to use it and video them. It's relatively cheap, and you'd be surprised what it will highlight.
I like policy of "eating your own dog food"("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eat_one's_own_dog_food). It brings you one step closer, because you become a user, although you might think like one.
Try to use your app when you are very hurry (e.g. you have someone who waits for a dinner).
You will see all this little things because you have to wait, you have to go back to the mouse of the keyboard, etc.
And also, make your wife use it. Or your mother.
Another useful test : help someone to use it, by phone. If he can't find the button with your directions, that's probably a bug.
The important thing is to get enough information that you yourself can become a "user". Once you do that you can answer most questions yourself.
The way I always do this is to go talk with them about what they need to do, what they typically do, and how they use their current tools to do it. Then (very important) sit with them while they do it. Make sure you get on with them well enough that you can come back to them with questions about how they handle edge cases you think of later (often the answer will be the appalling "we go around the system manually for that").
I will almost always notice something they are doing that is a royal PITA that they didn't bring up because they are used to having to do that and don't know any better. I will always notice that their %90 typical workflow isn't the easiest workflow the tools provide.
You can't really rely on plain old-fashioned requirements gathering by itself, because that is asking them to think like a developer. They generally don't know what is possible to do with your software, what is easy, and what is hard. Also they typically have no clue on GUI design principles. If you ask them for design input they will just tell you to put any new control on their favorite page, until the thing looks like a 747 control panel.
The problem is often that even the users don't know what they want until they are actually working with the software. Sometimes, a small oversight can be a big usability problem, sometimes a well thought out function that was requested by many users sees only little use.
My suggestions to decrease the risk of not implementing the right usability features:
Take a look at users actually doing their day to day work. Even if they use another software or no software at all. You will be able to determine the artifacts they often need to get their job done. You will see what data they frequently need. Concentrate on the artifacts, data and workflows most used. They should be the most usable. Exotic workflows may be a bit more time consuming for the users than often used workflows.
Use working prototypes of the GUI to let users work through a realistic workflow. Watch them and note what hinders them and what works well. Adjust your prototypes accordingly.
If an issue arises in an often-used part of your software, it is time to discuss it now and in details. If the issue concerns a seldom used part, make it a low priority issue and discuss it if you have the time. If issues or suggestions are low priority, they should stay low priority. If you can't determine if solution A or solution B is the best, don't run in circles with the same arguments over and over. Just implement one of the solutions and see if the beta testers like it. The worst thing you could do is waste time over tiny issues, while big issues need to be fixed.
A software will never be perfect, because the viewpoints of users differ. Some users will think that a minor problem breaks the whole application. Others will live with even severe usability issues. People tend to lend their ear to those who argue the loudest. Get to know your users to separate the "loud" issues from the important ones. It takes experience to do this, and sometimes you will make wrong decisions, but there is no perfect way, only one of steady improvement.
If you can, set aside a certain amount of usability development resources for the rollout phase of your software. Usability issues will arise when people start working with it in a real production environment. Sometimes it is not important to present the perfect software, but to solve issues quickly as they arise.
The flippant (yet somewhat accurate) answer to how to think like a user is put a knitting needle in your ear and push really hard.
The longer response is that we as programmers are not normal and I mean that in a good way. I scratch my head at the number of people who still run executables they receive from strangers in emails and then wonder how their computer got infected.
Any group of people will in time develop their own jargon, conventions, practices and expectations. As a programmer you will expect different things from an operating system than Joe User will. This is natural, to be expected yet hard to work around.
It's also why BAs (business analysts) exist. They typically come from a business or testing background and don't think like programmers. They are your link to the users.
Really though, you should be talking to your users. There's no poitn debating what users do. Just drag a few in and see what they do.
A usability test group will help.. tests not focused on discovering bugs, but on the learning curve of the new design, made by a group of users, not programmers.
I treat all users like malicious idiots.
Malicious because I assume all users are going to try and break my code, do stuff that is not allowed, avoid typing in valid data, and will do anything in their power to make my life hell.
Idiots because again I can't assume they will understand simple stuff like phone formats, will run away screaming if presented to many choices, and will not make any leap of faith on complicated instructions. The goal is to hold their hand the entire way.
At the same time, its important to make sure the user doesn't realize you think they're an idiot.
To think like a user, be one. But are these actually bugs that your testers are reporting? Or are they "enhancement requests"? If the software behaves as designed per requirements and they just don't like the way it operates, that's not a bug. That's a failure of requirements and design. Make it work, make it rock solid, make it easy to change and you'll be able to make it what your users want.
I see some good suggestions here, especially observing people trying to use you app. One thing I would suggest is to look at the order in which things are presented to the user on paper forms (if they use these to do data entry from) and make the final data entry page mimic that order as closely as possible. So many data entry errors (and loss of data entry speed) are from them having to jump around on the page and losing their place. I did some work for a political campaign this year and in every case, entering data was made much more difficult because the computer screen did things in a differnt order than the paper inputs. This is particularly important if the form is one that can't be changed (like a voter registration form, a campaign has to use what the state provides) to match the computer screen. ALso be consistent from screen to screen if possible. If it is first Name last name on one form, making it last name first name on the next will confuse people and guanteee data entry errors.
If you are truly interested in understanding users though I strongly suggest taking a course in Human factors engineering. It is an enlightening experience.
The 'right' way to do this is to prototype (or mock up) your new interface features, and watch your users try to use them. Nothing is as enlightening as seeing a real user try to use a new feature.
Unfortunately, given most projects time and resources, this is not possible. If that is the position you are in I would recommend you discuss in the team who has the best grasp of usability, and then make them responsible for usability decisions - but that person will need to regularly consult real users to make sure his/her ideas are consistent with what the users want.
I'd suggest doing some form of usability testing; I've participated in such in the past, and found them quite useful.
If you were writing a ticketing system, for example, bring up tasks, and ask questions like "how would you update this ticket" or "what do you expect to happen if this button is clicked".
You don't necessarily need a full application, either, in some places screen shots can be used.
You could take the TDD/BDD approach and get the users involved before beta, having them work with you on refining requirements as you write your unit tests. We're beginning to incorporate some of those trends into our current project, and we're seeing fewer bugs in the areas where we have involved the users earlier.
There is no "think like a user" technique, get your hands on someone who knows nothing of the project and throw what you have done at them.
It's the only way to see how the look + feel + functionality present themselves to the end user.
Once you shocked that person who knew nothing of the product, listen to all of their idiotic (or so you think they are) complaints, fix them, arrange every silly cosmetic thing they point out (either by fixing the UI or by improving whichever documentation you had)..
and after you have satisfied the person you chose to look at your app from zero knowledge on the subject first round, pick another ...and another... until they stop being shocked when they see it, and they don't get stuck on.. "ok.. what does this do?" kind of phases.
You (as a member of the project, be it the project manager, developer, etc) will never think like a user is my answer to that question.
Old saying: You can make something "fool proof" but you can't make it "Damn-fool proof".
Additionally: When you make something "idiot proof" the world invents a better idiot.
Other than that, I agree with what everyone else said.
Ask someone with absolutely no knowledge, insight or programming experience to use the program and try to figure out every function of the program.
People who would NEVER use such a program are most likely to find bugs.
See it as a new Safari user (or FF) who tries to put the URL inside the search field...
As a programmer you guess no-one would be that stupid (or, well.. unknowing), but people actually sometimes find themselves in these situations. As a programmer, we miss these things.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm not a full-time software guy. In fact, in the last ten years, 90 % of my work was either on the hardware or doing low-level (embedded) code.
But the other 10% involves writing shell scripts for development tools, making kernel changes to add special features, and writing GUI applications for end-users.
The problem is that I find myself facing significant holes in my knowledge, often because it's been years since I've done "X", and I've either forgotten, or the environment has changed.
Every so often, there are threads on TheDailyWTF.com along the lines of "WTF: the guy spent all day writing tons of code, when he could have called foobar() in library baz". I've been there myself, because I don't remember much beyond the #include <stdio.h> stuff (for example), and my quick search somehow missed the right library.
What methods have you found effective to crash-learn and/or crash-refresh yourself in programming environments that you rarely touch?
Ask developers you know that work in the environment that you are interested in.
Search the web a lot.
Ask specific questions in relevant IRC channels (Freenode is great).
Ask specific questions on StackOverflow and other sites.
There really isn't any substitue for being "in the daily flow" of the programming environment in question. Having a good feel for the current state of the art is something you only get from experience, as I'm sure you can verify in you own areas of expertise.
i try to keep up with general news about languages i'm interested in but aren't necessarily using at the moment. being able to follow the general changes helps a lot for when you have to pick it up again.
beyond that, i personally find it easiest to grab an up to date reference book, and code a few basic things to get me used to the environment again, ie as a web programmer i'd make a simple crud app, or a quick web service/client.
For frameworks/APIs (such as a JavaScript framework or a widget library):
Quickly scan through the entire API documentation; get a glimpse of all that's out there instead of picking the first method that seems to fit your needs.
If available, glance at the source code of the
framework to see how the
API was intended to be used. Seeing what's behind the curtain helps. And also
some of the methods will have been used
internally, showcasing their true intents.
Don't necessarily always trust existing code (Googled, from co-workers, from books) since not everyone does the due diligence to find out the most proper way to use an API. Sometimes even samples in API documentation can be out-of-date.
In newer full-featured environments like Java, .NET, and Python, there are library solutions to almost every common problem. Don't think "how can I program this in plain C", but "which library solves this problem for me?" It's an attitude shift. As far as resources, the library documentation for the three environments I mentioned are all good.
The best solution I think is to get a book on the topic / environment you need to catch up on.
Ask questions from developers who you know who have the experience in that area.
You can also check out news groups (Google Groups makes this easy) and forums. You can ask questions, but even reading 10 minutes of the latest popular questions for a particular topic / environment will keep you a little bit "in the know".
The same thing can go for blogs too if you can find a focussed blog. These are pretty rare though and I personally don't look to blogs to keep me "in the know" on a particular environment. (I personally find blogs most popular and interesting in the "here's something neat" or "here's how I failed and you can avoid it" or "general practice" areas.)
In addition to the answers above, I think what you are asking for will take a significant amount of your time, and you must be willing to spend that time to achieve your goals. My method would be pretty much the same as Owen's answer; get a reference book or tutorial and work through the examples hacking in changes as you go to experiment with how any given thing works. I'd say as a bare minimum, allocate a hour to do this every other day, in a time that you know you won't be interrupted. Any less, and you'll probably continue to struggle.
The best way to crash-learn is simple, simply do it, use google to search for X tutorial, open your favorite browser and start typing away. Once you reached a certain level of feeling with X, do look at other people things, there is lots of open source out there and there must be someboby who has used X before, look at how they solved certain problems and learn from this, this is an easy way to verify that you are 'on the right track' or that you're doing things or thinking in patterns that other people would define as 'common sense'.
Crash-refreshing something is much easier since you have a suspended learning curve already, the way I do this is to keep some of the example you did while writing or keep some projects you did. Then you can easily refresh and use your own examples.
The library issue you mention here well, only improving your search skills will improve that one (although looking on how others solved this will help as well)
Don't try and pick up every environment.
Focus on the one that's useful and/or interesting, and then pick a few quality blogs to regularly read or podcasts to listen to. You'll pick up the current state of the environment fairly quickly.
Concrete example: I've been out of the Java world for a long time, but I've been put on a Java project in the last few months. Since then I've listened to the Java Posse podcast and read a few blogs, and although I'm far from a Java guru I've got back up to speed without too much trouble.
Just a though. While we are working on our code we know that we need to work very hard to optimize the critical path, but on non critical path we usually don't spend to much effort to optimize.
From your description you are working 90% on embedded and 10% on rest, lets assume that in 50% of the rest you are spending more time that needed. So according to my calculation you are optimizing about 5% of your work flow ...
Of course the usual google/SO/forums search is useful before you doing something new, but investing more than just that is waste of time for my opinion, unless you want to waste some time just for fun or general education ... :), but this is another story.
By the way I'm in same position and last time i needed some GUI and used MFC (because i used it sometimes 10 years ago :) ) and i perfectly understand that i probably will get better results with C# and friends, but the learning curve just not justify this especially knowing that i need mix the C code with GUI.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I work on a complex application where different teams work on their own modules with a degree of overlap. A while back we got a Mediawiki instance set up, partly at my prompting. I have a hard job getting people to actually use it, let alone contribute.
I can see a lot of benefit in sharing information. It may at least reduce the times we reinvent the wheel.
The wiki is not very structured, but I'm not sure that is a problem as long as you can search for what you need.
Any hints?
Some tips:
Any time someone sends information by email that really should be in a wiki, make a page for that topic and add what they put in the email. Then reply "Thanks for that info, I've put it into the wiki here so that it's easier to find in the future."
Likewise, if you have information you need to share that should be in the wiki, put it there and just send an email with a link to it, rather than email people.
When you ask people for information, phrase it so that putting such documentation in the wiki should be considered the default or standard: "I searched in the wiki but I couldn't find it. Have you put that info up there yet?"
If you are the "wiki champion", make sure other people know how to use it, e.g. "Did I go through how to create a new page with you yet?"
Edit the sidebar to make sure it is relevant to your work.
Use "nav box" style templates on related pages for easier navigation.
Put something like {{Special:NewPages/5}} on the front page, or recent changes, so that people can see the activity.
Take a peek at Recent changes every few days or week, and if you notice someone adding information without being prodded, send them an email or drop by and give them a little compliment.
As I mentioned before, a Wiki is very unorganized.
However, if that is the only argument from your developers, then invest some effort to create a simple index page and keep it updated (either do it yourself or ask people to link their contributions to the index). That way, the Wiki might grow into a very nice and quite comprehensive collection of documentation for all your work.
We've been using a wiki in some form or another for a while now, but it does take a while for people to get on board. You might find that you will be the only one writing articles for some time, but bear with it, other people will come on board eventually.
If someone sends an email around that contains information related to the project then helpfully point them in the direction of the wiki - and keep doing that - they should get the hint.
We have a SharePoint portal and use the wiki from there - we customised it with our own branding so that it "looks the part" - I really feel this has helped to improve the uptake of it.
Make sure that everyone is aware that the wiki is even more informal than email.... because there will be a "fear factor" that people may think anything they add to the wiki will be over-analysed.
I think most of the answers so far are spot on - the more you plug away at it yourself, the larger the body of useful information will become, so slowly but surely people will naturally start to use it.
The other approach you could use is this: Suggest that every time someone asks another team member a question about the project, they should answer the question as normal, but also add the answer to a section of the Wiki. This may take a few minutes extra, but it will mean that the next time someone asks the same question (which they inevitably will), you can save time by pointing them at the Wiki. This, in turn, should help people to start using the Wiki as a first source of information and help overall up-take.
You can't force developers to do something they do not have an incentive of using for; unfortunately wikis, like documentation (well, in fact wikis are documentation) rarely have any "cool" value for developers. Besides, they're already deep into dev work -- could you really bother them with a wiki?
That being said, the people who pushed for the wiki (e.g., you) should be primarily responsible for updating it, and you really would have a lot of work cut out for you if you're serious about it.
You might also try the ff:
It's not very structured you say -- a lot of people get turned off from ill-structured (hard-to-search/browse) wikis. So maybe you can fix that first
Maybe you can ask lead developers/project managers to populate it with things that are issues for them: things like code conventions and API design for your particular project
Lead by example: religiously document your part of the system. Setting a precedent may encourage others to do the same
Sell the idea of using the wiki to the developers. You've identified some benefits, share those with the developers. If they can see that they'll get something of value out of it they'll start using it.
Example advantages from What Is a Wiki
Good for writing down quick ideas or longer ones, giving you more time for formal writing and editing.
Instantly collaborative without emailing documents, keeping the group in sync.
Accessible from anywhere with a web connection (if you don't mind writing in web-browser text forms).
Your archive, because every page revision is kept.
Exciting, immediate, and empowering--everyone has a say.
I have done some selling and even run some training sessions. I think some people are turned off by the lack of WYSIWYG editing and ability to paste formatted text from Word or Outlook. I know there are some tools to work around these, but they are still barriers.
There are some areas where the wiki is being used to log certain areas, but people who update those are not doing anything else with it.
I will use the wiki to document my specialised area regardless as it acts as a convenient brain extension. When starting a new development I use it as a notepad for ideas that I can expand on as it progresses.
It would help if management would give it some vocal support, even if it is not made mandatory.
I have a hard job getting people to actually use it, let alone contribute.
One of the easiest ways to get people to contribute to a wiki, is to actually have them provide contents in a wiki-suitable fashion, i.e. so that whatever they post using their usual channels of communications (newsgroups, mailing lists, forums, issue trackers, chat), is basically suitable for inclusion on the wiki.
So that others (users/volunteers) can simply take such contents and put them on the wiki.
This sounds more complicated than it really is, it's mostly about generalizing questions and answers, so that they are not necessarily part of a conversation, but can be comprehensible, meaningful and useful in a standalone fashion.
For example a question like the following:
how do I get git to clone a remote repository???
Can be answered like this:
Hello,
Just use git clone git://...
But questions can also be answered in a less personal style:
In order to clone a git repository, you will want to use the clone parameter to git:
git clone git://....
What I am trying to say is that most discussions in a project can and should be easily used to become documentation eventually. With this sort of mindset, your documentation can actually grow rather rapidly. You only need to get people to keep in mind that useful information should be ideally provided in a fashion that is suitable for wiki inclusion.
I have witnessed several instances where open source projects started to use this approach to some extent and while some people (largely new users) complained that answers were not very personal, the body of documentation was increasing steadily, because other people simply monitored such discussions and started to copy/paste such responses to the wiki.
Basically, this is one of the easiest ways to get people to contribute to a wiki, without requiring them to actually use it themselves, the only thing that's required of them is a shift in thinking.
If the developers still need to maintain 'real' documentation (s.a. Word documents), I see no way to meaningfully duplicate that on a Wiki.
It does not make sense for people to write twice
Any duplicated data is prone to get out of sync, soon.
What my current customer has done is move all this to Wiki. So I only document once, and I do it on the Wiki.
This is okay. Working with Wiki is more tedious than with Word, but at least the doc is online and others can mix-and-match with it.
Another working solution (imho) would be to store docs alongside the source, on subversion. But then the merging system needs to be able to cope with rich text etc. as well. I don't know, if any solution for that exists (other than using HTML or LaTex, which actually would not be bad picks).
Find "sticky" items (sub-3 pg. docs / diagrams / etc) something that the team seems to be creating again and again & post it on the wiki. Make sure everyone has access to the wiki and knows its there - set up a notification mechanism if possible. With some luck, the next time they have to access, rather than dig it out of version control or their machines - they should hit the wiki.
If they still don't, try to see if the team has enough slack to actually use the wiki - Subtler issues may lie beneath their reluctance.
Take a look at the advice at http://www.ikiw.org/ Grow your Wiki
Just to add to some of the excellent advice being offered here...
As a dev in a small company that does largely gov't contract work in the 6-24 month range, I find that my time is often split between development and writing status reports (right up there with writing documentation, only worse!) Having a wiki to slap down unorganized thoughts and notes as we go along has made report-writing a lot less painful (not pain-LESS, but better all the same).
Further, if you're already in the Mediawiki world, you might want to look at SemanticMediawiki. It allows you to take the organization of your data to another level by semantically tagging it. That doesn't mean a lot on its own, I know, but I can tell you (for example) that it can drastically improve the relevance of the data returned from searches. It is definitely worth a look.
Generally good advice here. I'd like to add:
You really need a champion - someone pushing this to developers and management (without being pushy - that's a challenge!) and providing support & tutorials when possible. This person also needs to be a peer (so a fellow developer, not someone in a remote IT department) and really customer focused i.e. ready to make changes when requested.
Speaking of changes, some people here say wikis are unstructured. I disagree. Our MediaWiki installation is structured using categories, particularly with two extensions:WarnNoCategories (to require users to add a category when saving a page) and CategoryTree to show how all the categories fit together (this can be linked to from the sidebar). I've got more tips on how we keep this low threshold, if you're interested.