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