When users never use the features they asked for
web.eecs.utk.edu
When users never use the features they asked for
1–10 of 228 posts
Re: When users never use the features they asked for
#2This was a nice article, but I’m not sure the title is representative of its contents. I think the first (Keep your users in the loop, always. Do not go build in isolation) or second to last (A user's workflow is everything ) bullet the author uses for their summary is findings to be more enlightening and representative.
Internal tools definitely require a close relationship with some set of users to really validate what’s being worked on. It’s just too easy for teams to make unused internal tools. The feedback loop is generally just not there initially. You really have to go and find some users. In this way it’s similar to pre-seed stage startup life.
Re: When users never use the features they asked for
#3Ha. Title is right about Android fanatics and Apple.
Re: When users never use the features they asked for
#4Great article, but I disagree with the premise.
Code review is too late for most automated analysis (at the level of: "parameter isn't validated" as seen in the screenshot), it should ideally be done as a compiler/lint check in the IDE, and at worst as a git pre-commit hook.
In most cases it's not worth sending a code review if there is automated feedback which can and should be addressed before a human sees it. It streamlines the reviews for reviewers, and gives new contributors a much better experience as they have less feedback to address, and more confidence that their code is correct.
Re: When users never use the features they asked for
#5People will buy products because if features they will never use. Not building costs money.
Re: When users never use the features they asked for
#6People will buy products because if features they will never use. Not building costs money.
This is particularly true if the “users” aren’t the ones who are signing the cheques. Sometimes shiny stuff that looks good in a product demo or on the trade show floor is what it takes to actually move units.
Re: When users never use the features they asked for
#7I was hoping for a good old fashioned, negative developer rant.
Re: When users never use the features they asked for
#8[deleted]
Re: When users never use the features they asked for
#9One of many things I learned from writing software just for myself is that I'm just about as bad as anybody at figuring out what I really want, even when I'm talking to myself. I've even had one or two cases where I ignored a feature I asked myself for, and much later realized: Hey, I could actually use that. The worst is asking myself, "How many times do I have to ask for this before you quit procrastinating and just get it done???" I'm not sure which of me is the bigger jerk.
Re: When users never use the features they asked for
#10I was hoping for a good old fashioned, negative developer rant.
The author is atleast referring to those rants as "angry mails" he got.
I think these automated CI systems is a losing battle. It makes the build chain to complex. There is too much corner cases that gives false positives unless you keep it dead simple, like eg. enabling all warnings are errors or something in gcc.