41–50 of 67 posts
> When programmers come to me and simply say “this code does not work,” I send them away. Their problem is not solvable by me or anyone. When people come to me and say that, I ask "in what way doesn't it work?" and figure out how to help them.
> The phrase “does not work” should be reserved for when you’re taking your car to the mechanic and you don’t have a clue what’s wrong with it. I might suggest that the phrase "does not work" is as irritating to mechanics as it is to programmers. "Don't have a clue what's wrong with it" is clearly not the case if you are taking a car to a mechanic in the first place -- you surely have _some_ idea of what's wrong with…
For the first hundred of error reports I tried hard to get any information beyond "nothing works" — yeah, not just something doesn't work, nothing does. Phone line diagnostics were hard and both sides quickly tired because of lack of understanding. Me and my client had different sets of terminology, thinking styles and stereotypes. But as the time goes by, my remote-debug skill grows.
And I started to get feedback. It was still inaccurate and often rough, but two things could easily be noticed: 1) there still are people who won't help; 2) people who help have their own ideas on what's happening depending on their [relatively tiny] computer knowledge. That started an era of the great misunderstanding. As we easily exchanged clients in our tight company, we did entire blocks and modules in wrong ways, based on information from incompetent client. We did work that no one needs. We prepared for something, and it was not there. And then I finally got why (partly) 1)-group exists. They just went through all that a long time ago.
The fact is, whether does your client tell you what's happening, or does not, you have to go there and have all of your tools and instruments and anything you have with you. You do not listen on their interpretations. You just go there and say "show me". And only then you have all the information on what is actually happening and where and who is in charge.
After we realized that, we stopped asking for any feedback. Literally. The only two things we needed to know about the problem were 1) is that a "show stopper"? 2) who encountered it. First one makes your weekly plan. Second one gives a hint about a module name and its developer.
We stopped exchanging info from clients, intentionally. If I need someone to make things for me, I just call and tell him to go to the place and solve anything they need, without details. If I get a call, I just say ok, I'll be there in two hours. That was an improvement.
So, if your client tells you "it doesn't work", just be happy that he doesn't spend your time and be sure that you have remote desktop app or remote access system enabled at his side.
> The phrase “does not work” should be reserved for when you’re taking your car to the mechanic and you don’t have a clue what’s wrong with it. I might suggest that the phrase "does not work" is as irritating to mechanics as it is to programmers. "Don't have a clue what's wrong with it" is clearly not the case if you are taking a car to a mechanic in the first place -- you surely have _some_ idea of what's wrong with…
It made me realize the value of careful observation (looking at an old fashioned black telephone with a dial in my case) and then careful description of what I was seeing in terms that would communicate it to the others.
It's funny how often someone tells me their computer or some software is simply not working. I guess I'm no better; I usually reply "Have you tried turning it off and then on again." (A favorite line from the British comedy, The IT Crowd.)
> When programmers come to me and simply say “this code does not work,” I send them away. Their problem is not solvable by me or anyone. When people come to me and say that, I ask "in what way doesn't it work?" and figure out how to help them.
Yeah. I feel like if you really are working with people who are total caricatures of cargo-culting code monkeys, and you see yourself as a Guru holding court and suffering the wailing of ignorant petitioners only so long as they are able to dig deep within themselves and attempt to rise to Your level for the duration of the conversation, you have only yourself to blame. Blogs posted from high horseback are just mastu…
An article on the best ways to convey the answer to the question "in what way does it not work" seems a good start.
Yes the tone is obnoxious, but the advice is good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The same goes for "Hello -- Are you there?", "Hi Bob -- quick question.", "Do you have a sec ?", "yt?" and "ping". Just ask the question! Actually, I'd prefer that coworkers don't start blowing up my phone/PC with chat alert beeps for an extended question until they've confirmed that I'm not in a meeting/trying to concentrate/etc.
Why? Does your chat client beep differently for longer messages? As long as it all fits in a single message, what's the difference?
I have seen the embarrassment on people's faces when in a meeting and their IM app starts beeping like a time-bomb after someone has cut the wrong-wire.
The sender sending a short 1 liner and waiting for acknowledgement before proceeding would prevent this. (results in a single beep if the receiver is busy)
Its also avoided if the sender simply sends their entire query as a single message. (again results in a single beep if the receiver is busy and doesn't reply)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The same goes for "Hello -- Are you there?", "Hi Bob -- quick question.", "Do you have a sec ?", "yt?" and "ping". Just ask the question! Actually, I'd prefer that coworkers don't start blowing up my phone/PC with chat alert beeps for an extended question until they've confirmed that I'm not in a meeting/trying to concentrate/etc.
Alternatively, if you're in one of those not-available states, most IM clients have some kind of facility to publish that availability...
I've started using the "Do not disturb" option in my Office Communicator when am in important meetings. Using that option on the communicator makes it impossible for someone to send me a message. Any attempts explicitly fail on the sender's end with an error stating the obvious - The receiver has set "Do not Disturb"