Re: Imaging
Albert Yan (pointnshoot@earthlink.net)
Mon, 23 Sep 1996 22:03:45 -0700
Judy Seigel wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Sep 1996 FotoDave@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I agree more with Judy in this issue. It was mentioned (not by her, but I
> > don't remember whom) that you don't have to upgrade if you don't want to
> > Although theoretically you can keep your hardware/software without
> upgrding
> > to new version, in practice it is almost impossible.
>
> I hope I will be forgiven for using bandwidth to thank David S. for a most
> lucid and compelling description of life in the cyberlane.... And really,
> it's not just because he agrees ("more") with me, it's because it's
> comforting to know that an *expert* has taken prattfalls parallel to (if
> on a higher level than) the ones I've taken. When I was trying to get the
> alt-photo connection connected, I described the effort in an e-mail titled
> "Getting on the Internet in 108 easy steps," and I don't think any of it,
> graphics or service bureaus, hardware or software, has gotten any simpler
> or more coherent.
>
>
> David Fokos's enthusiasm is understandable and no doubt contagious (I
> might catch it myself if I hadn't been so recently innoculated). And
> thereby he no doubt does his bit to speed up the switch to digital... ie
> the day when we have no choice ... except to go back to collodion for our
> film.... (Just kidding, I'm afraid of gun cotton.)
>
> > I have worked with
> manufacturer of film recorder, and
> > believe it or not, not all of them are getting it right yet. This is mainly
> > because originally the primary use of film recorders is to make slides, so
> > algorithm/calibration for outputting to negative hasn't been well researched
>
> Recently I spoke to a woman who tests software for a living. She explained
> that one reason the manuals are so bad is because they're written before
> the program is finished.... In film recorders, it would seem before the
> algorithm is finished -- ?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Judy
Judy,
Gee - I don't know where your friend works, but with every product I
did, we did the manual a bit delayed from the SW. We didn't start the SW
until a SW spec was written (including the user interface!!) and didn't
start the manual until the SW reached the first major milestone (alpha -
indicating ALL functionality was implemented. Buggy, but implemented.).
The SW was frozen as far as functionality and operation goes BEFORE we
finished the manual, and all but the absolutely lst minute show-stopper
bugs were in the manual. Those show stoppers never involved algorithms
and the like, but involved things like crashing the system or losing
files. Let me know who this manufacturer is - might be a good idea to
stay away from their products until the third or fourth release.
Manuals generally are bad because (in order of frequency):
1) the product was not adequately spec'ed in the first place
2) the manual designers and editors (not the writers, necessarily) don't
have a technical and educational writing background. Being able to use a
spell checker should NEVER be the only qualification for a technical
writer.
3) the design and testing process takes so many shortcuts that they're
designing and fixing featurs even as the shipping containers are beng
queued up.
Albert