All this pontificating from Barry is pretty funny, given that the problem he's boasting about having solved *wasn't what Share had been asking for help with*.
Rather, it's a problem *Barry* had with Share's posts, one *he* brought up as part of his putdown of her for having asked for help without giving sufficient information about the problem she *did* want help with: "Your question makes no sense whatsoever because you didn't provide enough information. No one you're asking has any idea which program you are using to read Fairfield Life, and thus cannot comment. All that we know is that the program is so ill- behaved that it continues to insert these dumb ^A symbols at random in your posts when seen in certain views." The spurious-character problem was *not* keeping Share from "doing her job," i.e., from posting to FFL. She didn't need to have it solved. She apparently didn't even know about it. Barry was the one with the problem. And while he's been loudly tooting his own horn about having solved it, Share still hasn't gotten any help with *her* problem. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: (snip) > Which is *exactly* why programmers make the *worst* > QA and Customer Support people. They home in on the > nerd details, while largely *ignoring* the fact that > the person on the other end of the phone has a problem > that is keeping them from doing their job. > > What is important in a good Customer Support rep is > to find a fast "workaround," something that pinpoints > the "user behavioral cause" of the problem and allows > the user to "work around it," while the nerds are off > somewhere trying to figure out the programmatic cause > of the problem and fix it, possibly not for six months > or more in the next software release. > > That's what I did with Share's spurious character issue. > I figured out what caused the problem from *her* side, > and suggested another mode of behavior that would stop > the problem. Simply STOP typing two spaces after a > period. Voila. Problem solved. Now, if someone wanted > to, and worked for Yahoo, they could sit down and figure > out what the *programmatic* cause of turning two spaces > into a non-breaking space followed by a normal space, > and thus causing problems for down-the-line browsers > might be, and fix it. > > *That* problem could lie pretty much anywhere. It could > be in the Yahoo Mail editor, someone choosing the wrong > character to insert for a non-breaking space (or in > the decision to try to preserve double spaces in the > first place). It could be in the Yahoo Groups Web > Reader's Reply editor, that causes it to display that > character with a weird symbol. But none of those > fixes will be happening in a real time mode soon enough > to do anyone any good. So the "workaround" provides > the most immediate relief. > > No sane Customer Support department would hire people > who are so programmer-centric that they can't see this. > No one on the other end of a phone CARES what the > programmatic cause of the bug that is preventing them > from working is. They just want to be able to work. > > Most programmers don't even *keystroke* the programs > they write, to find out how they'd respond to someone > doing something other than they way they assume it > "should" be done. That's why there are QA departments. > Their job is to BREAK programs by doing the unexpected, > so that customers out in the field aren't the first > people to do so. I used to know a QA person who had > been doing it so long that he claimed he could find > a bug in ANY program within an hour. ANY program. And > people called him on this claim, and he won every > time. He knew what types of *assumptions* to look for > and to exploit, so he'd just try a few of them, and > sure enough, the programmer would have forgotten to > account for them, and BOOM!, he'd blow it up and > cause a Class I crash. > > Most of the followup to the spurious character issue > here has been of the overly-focused-on-the-nerd-stuff > "why is the *program* doing this" thang. My suggestion > was more pragmatic -- addressing what I intuited was > the *user behavior* that was causing the issue, and > suggesting a change in that behavior to make the issue > go away. Why should Share or anyone else CARE what > the programmatic issue is, if there is a workaround > that causes the problem not to appear? > > In a way, this is a parallel situation to Buddhism > vs. other forms of spiritual practice. The original > Buddha refused to dwell on the "why" certain forms > of suffering happened. That, he believed, was pure > nerd theory, useless, and a total waste of time. He > focused instead on what one could do to eliminate > the situation that resulted in the suffering, and > provided a "workaround." > > For example, if you're consistently unhappy focusing > on your self and trying to "defend" it and gratify it, > STOP focusing on your self. Focus on someone else, > and on helping them. Focus on selfless giving, and > the self is no longer an issue. Voila...unhappiness > goes away. >
