Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!adm!niuvax!sys1@anl-mcs.arpa
From: sys1@anl-mcs.arpa
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re:  Re:  Request for human interface design anecdotes
Message-ID: <10659@brl-adm.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 3-Dec-87 21:30:21 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-adm.10659
Posted: Thu Dec  3 21:30:21 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 8-Dec-87 02:54:55 EST
Sender: news@brl-adm.ARPA
Lines: 35


     In an article in UNIX-WIZARDS-DIGEST (V4#088) paul@umix.cc.umich.EDU 
writes:
	
	> Yes, I think the key idea here is the *overall* interface.  For
	> example, three people were working on a software project under my
	> direction.  One rm-ed an entire directory of source, and stammered
	> something about rm star, spaces, backslashes, and something else.  He
	> was sweating profusely, and had something to say about the
	> inappropriate user interface that /bin/csh had, etc.
	
	> Well, this has probably happened to some of you, and it's always "well,
	> we lost a day's worth of work, but we had really good backups, etc."
	
	> Well, we hadn't done backups in about two months.
	
	> So, I fired him.
	
	> The other two saw the "big picture (or what I believe
	> dawn!stpeters refers to as "the overall interface") and got right on
	> that evolutionary path!
	
I submit that in that case perhaps the wrong person was fired.  Perhaps the
manager of a system that is not backed up in two months or more has already
demonstrated a considerably more significant level of incompetence and danger
to his installation than someone who makes a typing error.  Even secretaries,
who are professional typists, are expected to make an occasional typing error.

                               Scott Bennett
                               Systems Programming
                               Northern Illinois University
                               DeKalb, Illinois 60115

                      UUCP:  ...!anlams!niuvax!sys1
                      BITNET:  A01SJB1@NIU