On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 08:59 -0600, Palit, Nilanjan wrote:
> I think it is really naïve to blame a tool for an outcome -- it's just as
> silly as blaming poor driving on cars/roads rather than the drivers!
Please don't take this as trying to argue against your point, but this
analogy has flaws. Some cars are inherently less safe than others. (some
have claimed that certain car models were unsafe at any speed.) Some
roads are inherently less safe than others. A few years ago I heard that
the state was doing a study to try and figure out why Rt 24 between
Bridgewater and Randolph had disproportionally more accidents than other
roadways. Since the determination of whether someone is a good driver or
a poor driver doesn't take this into account ("He's had some car
accident, but he has one of those early topheavy SUVs and commutes on Rt
24 to work.") the perception of someone driving ability is affected by
cars and roads.
To discuss something closer to the topic, although I'm not sure if its
arguing for or against, many tools (both computer and in real life) are
sold without appropriate training. Spreadsheets or word processors are
sold without training in finance or writing. People can write HTML with
out training in web site design or information architecture. (You can
also buy nail guns, arc welders, guitars, drums, etc. without training.)
You can also find training material that will mislead users on how
little effort they need to learning their tools ("Learn Excel in 24
Hours", "Easy Blues Guitar", etc.) People don't tend to blame poor
financial worksheets or poor stories on the tools used, and see the
deficit in the underlying content. There might be something about
presentation tools (I don't just mean Powerpoint, I mean Powerpoint,
Keynote, Harvard Graphics, and yes, uri, even a Kodak Carousel
projector.) that somehow remain even after the poorly constructed idea
has been dismissed.
Maybe the issue is time? Once you've found the flaws in the calculations
of a spreadsheet, you stop looking at it. If you find the text of a
document uninteresting you either stop reading or start skimming to a
place that becomes relevant. If you are stuck in a poorly thought out
presentation, you remain stuck until the meeting ends.
Maybe there is something about certain tools that encourage people to
play around with them in a way that others don't. If I pulled out my
guitar and played it, you'd likely think "Andrew's a pretty lousy
guitarist." If I pulled out a keyboard punched in one of my custom
patches and played, you'd might instead think "It was stupid of Andrew
to spend so much time mucking around with his instrument instead of
learning to play it." If enough people played keyboards badly, you might
think they are inherently bad instruments (I believe this actually did
happen around 1985.)
I don't know. Its been argued about forever:
Its the the user's misuse of the tool:
"Text processing has made it possible to right-justify any idea, even
one which cannot be justified on any other grounds." --J. Finegan, USC
The tool encourages lack of thought in the user:
"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other human
invention in human history ... with the possible exception of handguns
and tequila." -- Mitch Ratcliffe
_______________________________________________
Boston-pm mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
