Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 00:24:08 -0500 (CDT) From: Chris Dillon <cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us> To: Sue Blake <sue@welearn.com.au> Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_C=2E_Sm=F8rgrav?= <dag-erli@ifi.uio.no>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Network Computers Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.02A.9809212350440.2416-100000@duey.hs.wolves.k12.mo.us> In-Reply-To: <19980922140459.61177@welearn.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Sue Blake wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 1998 at 09:33:25PM -0500, Chris Dillon wrote: > > On 21 Sep 1998, Dag-Erling C. [iso-8859-1] Smørgrav wrote: > > > > > Chris Dillon <cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us> writes: > > > > I could do something very similar if I were using FreeBSD or Linux > > > > workstations here (which I would _really_ love, but alas, most people > > > > here say "Duh, What's Unix?" or "But, it doesn't run MS Word". Ugh.). > > > > > > To which you answer, 'but it does run StarOffice and ApplixWare'. > > > > > > FU set to -advocacy :) > > > > And I get the reply "Yeah, but we're standardizing on MS Word". > > Double-ugh. Unfortunately the person before me got that started, and > > IMHO, it was a very bad move. Inertia has its way, though. It isn't so > > much a matter of wether StarOffice or ApplixWare can read/write Word > > stuff either, its the look&feel they want to keep too. > > Too? I'd bet that's all they're looking for. They find its look and > feeel acceptable, they're used to it, and they've decided to > standardise on it. > > They wouldn't give two hoots what OS is under it, or even what word > processor it is, so long as it's the same look and feel. That's all > they know, the whole sum total of what computers are to them. They have > never been granted access to anything else, much less control. We switched from Office 95 to Office 97 about a year or so ago. That was actually quite a change in user interface (I hate Office 97... I managed to stand using Office 95. It did less behind your back or without your permission). I had to munge around and find menu items that moved from one menu to an entirely different one, or even disappeared entirely and moved to a dialog box that popped up when you accessed something else. If our users managed to swallow that change, learning StarOffice or Applixware should be a breeze. :-) StarOffice actually looks very much like Office 95 (the wp and spreadsheet parts of it), or at least I think so, so that wouldn't be a problem for most people to use. I've never seen ApplixWare, but I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to grasp either. > To do so would require enormous sums spent on full (not just token) > training, support, and work time to play with the system to get to know > it and fix it afterwards. Of course that's not on, too expensive, > risky, and we just want them to be able to type! Fortunately, training is just what we're in the business of. :-) > > I deal with the type of people that if one little icon moves on the > > screen, they get all upset because its "different now". > > Typical reaction of someone who is required to be productive in an > environment which they neither understand nor can control. They barely > hang in there by gaining familiarity with the parts they touch. That's > all they have. Change must be tremendously threatening to anyone in > that situation. I should have said I _did_ deal with those types of people at one time. At least in my organization, we've probably shocked them with so much change that they've adapted to be more adaptive, if you know what I mean. > > > I may try setting up a FreeBSD box > > with a neat window manager and StarOffice or ApplixWare and have someone > > who has never seen Unix sit in front of it and use it for a while. > > They would love it if they judged it by our criteria. They certainly > won't, and they certainly won't. I'm not wanting them to judge it by our criteria. I want to see if I can create something that the average user wouldn't have much trouble learning how to use. It should be easy to whip up stuff that looks identical up to a certain point (use fvwm95, maybe an explorer lookalike file browser, etc.). > On the other hand, if it looked simiar and responded identically to > every mouse click, mouse movement, and key combination, and all the > dialog boxes had the same content, I predict they would accept it. > If, for example, a mail merge had to be done <100 names at a time, > they could adapt. But that print button must be third from the left!! > I don't think everything would have to be _exactly_ the same. Most people can easily adapt to a little change. If things look even just vaguely familiar, some people will still be able to adapt quickly on their own, and the rest will take a little bit of handholding until they realize it really isn't all that much different. > Please don't think I'm trying to defend or put down either side. > I think some of us, including you, are genuinely interested in finding > ways to bring sanity to the world. The prerequisite is to fully > understand and have empathy with those who would oppose us. > Otherwise, no matter how carefully we formulate our arguments why > should they even bother listening? We're asking them to let go, but > we've got a hell of a lot of letting go to do ourselves first. > > The context here is word processing, but the principles can apply > to all types of interaction where different conclusions are drawn > from different world views. > > -- > > Regards, > -*Sue*- > -- Chris Dillon - cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us - cdillon@inter-linc.net /* FreeBSD: The fastest and most stable server OS on the planet. For Intel x86 and compatibles (SPARC and Alpha under development) (http://www.freebsd.org) */ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.02A.9809212350440.2416-100000>