Comments on: Technology's 10 most inexcusable failures

ZDNet's David Berlind has his dander up about half-baked technologies that still don't do what they're supposed to.

outlook printing

why can't a message in Outlook be configured to print a particular page number. If I need only page 1, I have to print all pages -what a waste of paper.

[Al_S_Cook]

Universal Web Servers

I think most new devices on the market that contain a significant software component should contain a built-in Web server, or some simple Web interface that would permit programmability. Programming my phone requires one sequence of commands to painfully, to punch on a numeric keypad. Programming my VCR is entirely different. My FM receiver is programmable, if I can remember how that works or locate the manual. Some simple interface with a few drop-down boxes relevant to the device should let me enter data from, say, a USB connection from a computer, and also store it on the computer. The power goes out, I restore all the programming. No weird front-dial triple-purpose buttons to remember. Just hook me up, ID the device, present me with its interface. It should be easier than filling out an Amazon order, which a lot of people can do.

Why use cabling?

Great point on the devices, that would be awesome. But why use a cable? Why not use Bluetooth, or a similar technology? A button on the device would activate the wireless connection, and allow communication.

I had a Timex/Motorola Pager Watch in 1999. In a package no larger than most men's watches, It was an alpha-numeric pager, calendar reminder, held some several hundred names/addresses, and set itself automatically from the time zone you were in. At the last Japanese Olympics, they even managed to add a working cell phone in one. (May not have been the Motorola, buyt a similar thing.) Wireless technology abounds, we should stop dealing with cables. Someone earlier mentioned a cable connection to transfer things to a Mac. Why? Why doesn't the Almighty Mac already have peer-to-peer wireless? Why not any of them?

Good point someone made about the cell phones here in US. In fact, it's come to light too often that the providers have sent devices back to Nokia,/Motorola/Ericsson, etc, to have functions turned OFF. The cellular providers profit from you having to send the picture as an email, so whay would they ever allow a good bluetooth phone? The profit motive is AGAINST further development, including furthering the network itself. Roaming is a huge profit item, for both providers. Any why allow multi-provider phones when they can charge you for their proprietary one, and force you into a contract, to boot. Yes, even the pre-paids have their own phones.

Where has technology failed us? Well, look first at the cellular situation. The technology exists, but the providers have failed you.

On home electronics, look no further than DishNetwork VS DirectTV vs Cable to see another example of the third-party providers driving the developmental wagon. Remember cable-ready TV's? They *can't* happen now, with three to five distinctly different formats for delivering the signal into your house.

On computers & software: there is too much infighting for any real development to occur. Those who have ever called a tech support line know one of the first things they start asking about is whether there is any third-party stuff present, software or hardware. Watch how fast the buck gets passed. Profit there, too. Now ABC company can CHARGE you for a tech support call because they claim XYZ's whatever is the problem. Meanwhile, you call XYZ, who charges you, also, because their product works, and now you have wasted their time, and yours.
On infighting, just sit back and watch the MS vs Linux vs Mac knock-down-drag-out-free-for-all. There will probably never be any common stardards between them, because each one trashes the other two every chance they get. Is interesting to watch these groups load up quick with "I told you so" every time someone says Microsoft has a vunerability, from both Mac and Linux users. Like this guy toward the top, who sneered in with "if this guy was a REAL pro, he wouldn't be using M$" I hold a handful of Master Certifications in the IT field, and am Head of Tech Support for a software company, and I use Outlook.

One sad day, these people will realize when their precious OS/X, Linux, or Firefox are just as big a target as Windows & IE, they will have just as many problems as Microsoft.

There is anti-virus for Linux and Mac for a reason. These product's aren't immune, just less exposed.

The real issue is larger and remains unaddressed.

Dwight Eisenhower is credited with saying, "If a problem cannot be solved, enlarge it."

Most of the problems you cite have common themes running through them. It's a disconnect between the user looking at a problem and thinking "this is what I want", and the technology provider looking at the technology and thinking "this is what we can do". This leads to surgical, limited, and frustrating "fixes" for life's problems.

An example: Microsoft introduced the Start menu in Windows 95. They found that a large segment of users didn't know where to begin without Windows 3.1's visible Program Manager, so they added an animation that slid across the taskbar and pointed to the Start button. However, they correctly reasoned that the animation would get annoying after seeing it a few dozen times, so after the user uses the Start menu a few times, the animation no longer occurs.

The close-up problem is "how do we tell new users to use the Start menu, and then stop telling them when they know how?" They solved this problem with a chunk of code and a Registry setting.

Later, they discovered that people who wanted to get rid of the Office Assistant altogether typically just hid it every time it came up. Another close-up problem, with another close-up solution: if you hide the assistant right away several times in a row, it asks if you really want to get rid of it permanently. Another small chunk of code and a Registry setting.

You can see, I'm sure, that these are really the same problem. But larger problems don't get addressed--instead, we keep solving the specific problem again and again, each time we see it come up, with specific one-off fixes.

Your examples cut-and-paste URLs, cut-and-paste appointment requests, and cut-and-paste contact information are all small views of the same problem. The user thinks, "computer, you know this. Why do I have to tell you again?"

Unfortunately, the solution that will get implemented by a software company is "we need to automate cutting and pasting of URLs". "We need to create a spec for a comment contact information format." "We need to create a consortium to come up with a global appointment interchange system."

Instead of solving real, root problems, we continue to do as little as we can to solve the facet we're staring at. The first person to really understand this and address it, without getting embroiled in huge, inflexible architectures that try but fail to anticipate every situation ahead of time, will be the next software pioneer.

[reststop]

Larger than Life

Hear Hear!

The real problem as stated is being ignored. Maybe this tactic is
to fix things people complain about and hope the bigger
problem goes away. So some people go away happy that their
pet problem is solved.

I've worked and designed user interfaces for programs and
system utilities for over 30 years, and many of today's programs
just miss the point.

It seems (I can only say what it seems like, because I see no real
evidence to the contrary) that development organizations only
work on projects that are funded and even bug fixes aren't
funded. I recall talking to developers many times asking if they
could fix the way a feature works, and their answer was often
that they were working on funded issues and all their time was
alloted to various project billing items and had no time to work
on improving the user interface unless someone commissioned
a project to do that.

What happend to the job of the Systems Analyst who works with
the user community to find out what the need is, and fills it? As
a developer 30 years ago, it was my JOB to ask the users
questions and decide how best to answer as many of their
requests in one homogeneous program or series of programs. If
I didn't do a good job, I had to go back and re-work it, or I
didn't get any more projects to work on. Or worse, I lost my job.

One project (I didn't work on this, but it is a classic) I knew of
commissioned a study and found that it's users found the
system slow and clunky as they waited between entering their
request and seeing the results. An example would be having the
program respond that the query was accepted and then you
waited and waited for a result not know ing how long it would
take. To improve user perception, the programmers reworked
the output to pre-print title and header information in parallel
while the computer performed it's search. The users saw that
the computer responded immediately with a formatted heading
for the requested report and a shorter delay between the end of
that printing and the beginning of the actual report data. By
giving the user information in pieces, giving them time to read
the first part while the remaining data was accumulated, it gave
the impression of better and faster response even though it took
exactly the same amount of time.

It solved the real problem. Users were happy.

Today with seemingly single threaded programming, I believe
that I spend more time WAITING for computers than I used to 20
years ago. The reason? They are fast enough now, that when
you tell it to do something and you wait... and wait... you wait to
enter the next part of the interchange so the computer can
continue to work, but it comes back quickly enough that you
don't have time to go out for a cup of coffee or work on
something else while waiting.

On old ASCII based systems I could pull up a form, enter the
data I needed, hit the requisite number of carriage returns and
enter data for the next form, and the next while it was working
on the previous part, then go off to get a drink and come back
to a complete set of results.

Today with most systems (not all, but MOST) you have to wait
for the entire form to be displayed, then you can fill in pieces,
then you have to hit submit or continue, and wait for the next
form to be displayed, then fill it in, and then submit, and wait,
then fill-in then wait, again and again.

My only recourse is to have several windows open at all times
and hope that I don't lose track of which phase or part of the
process in each window.

Improvements in web applications, web services, java apps,
object-oriented programming are all great that they solve the
technology side of the equation but we're creating a generation
of drones that fill out requests, wait for results, fill out requests
and wait, over and over instead of solving real-work human
interaction or user interface issues.

How many times have you entered a bank or store and been told
that they can't do something for your right now because the
computers are down or unavailable? You can't even leave a
request with all the proper information to be retrieved later.
You have to wait for the computers to be available, then
interactively you or the clerk have to enter the information and
get your nearly instantaneous results.

We are slowly (maybe faster than you think) being made into
slaves of technology instead of the technology improving our
lives.