Since 1962 I've owned about 35-40 vehicles, cars, trucks, motorcycles,
scooters, golf carts, wheel chairs, jet skis, and boats, sail or power.
In those cases where the item was new, almost new, or familiar
technology, I've purchased without a test drive-ride-sail about a dozen
times, each without regret. Focusing on automobiles, to me a car is a
car, since by now I've owned all the typical types.
The touch screen interface has introduced a new factor that, for me, has
becoming overarching. Common functions now have vastly differing brand
specific, user interfaces. After my rental car experience, where I had
to pull over and find the popular controls, I have re-thought my
evaluation process and yesterday acted upon it.
Yesterday I visited one of my local new car dealers and asked for a test
"drive". The initial evaluation focused on dealing with the touch
screen interface. I started the car, drove to a backwater in their lot,
parked and proceeded to explore the menu screens. Had I not liked it,
the "drive" would have concluded then and there. As it happened, I did
like it and will seriously consider this car, a Chrysler SRT8. I like
the screen functions and I'm horsepower mad.
By way of a real world example, back in the mid 90s I had my first
encounter with CA-PDSMAN and EZedit. This product was to me new and
feature rich. I haven't used ISPF 3.4 since.
Automobiles have become this.
On 10/23/2013 5:54 AM, zMan wrote:
OK, this is getting OT, but you'd buy a car without test driving it?
Seriously?
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Ed Gould <[email protected]> wrote:
Tony:
Chuckle I don't think that will help as most vehicles on the showroom
floor do not have power (battery has been disconnected).
Having said that I recently bought a car and did not like the stereo the
car came with. I went to a place that sold different models and was not
allowed to play around with the "monitor".
The screen is a touch screen and it can go bonkers just by touching it.
Whenever it goes bonkers I have to pull over to the side of the road and
get out the owners manual (big deal its written in poorly translated
Japanese) I like the quality but hate having to deal with it when its
needed.
Ed
On Oct 22, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Tony's Ancient Dell wrote:
A recent experience with a rental car has me re-thinking the concept of
the test drive. My own cars are 10+ years old, dog years in technology.
The latest automotive examples makes the term "regular car" a paradigm
that is slipping away from me. Next time I kick some new car tires I'll
begin the test "drive" by sitting in the parking lot and spending a fair
amount of time judging the touch screen interface. If I don't like it
there's no point in driving off the dealer's lot.
YouTube has some helpful examples of automotive whiz bang technology.
On 10/22/2013 11:30 AM, John McKown wrote:
The problem, for the "average end user", is just what Microsoft said long
ago: Choice is bad. Today's end users need the equivalent of an
automobile.
Once you've learned how to drive a "regular" car (versus an 18-wheeler or
Formula One or NASCAR ...), then you can fairly easily drive most other
consumer cars. Computers are still in the pre-Henry Ford days. Every car
manufacturer did it their own way, sometimes multiple ways. Personally, I
think that the smart phone or tablet interface will "win out" for the
average consumer. Only geeks (and maybe hard core gamers) will use mice
and
keyboards. I try to imagine the future "knowledge worker" trying to use
these interfaces for things like claim forms. I rather like the thought
of
a Quake-like interface for claims processing <grin/>. "Frag that claim!"
But it may be that the real future (assuming the ME doesn't explode and
destroy the entire civilization) is phablet sized devices mainly using
voice recognition and speech. I do that for SMS messages on my Android
smart phone.
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Lou Losee <[email protected]> wrote:
Is it truly required for *everyone* to be computer literate? In the
early
days computers were not so widespread the few that used them were those
that understood them and how they worked. This was necessary as the
systems themselves were crude with regard to interfaces and services
provided. Now that the computer has become more of an appliance why
should
users need to understand it anymore than they need to understand how a
phone or a car transmission (manual or automatic) works in order to use
it.
If you want to spread technology to the masses, you need to remove the
complexity and the need for intimate understanding. Everyone does not
have
the time, knowledge or possibly the intellect for understanding complex
systems that are in common use.
Lou
--
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity
- Unknown
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Gerhard Adam <[email protected]>
wrote:
Fair enough, but let's forget about users in this regard. In my
experience,
the business environment has become unnecessarily restrictive regarding
risk, so that even supposed "sandbox" systems may have significant
limits
on
what an individual can do. When this is coupled with there being zero
benefit to taking on such a risk, it becomes easier to see why
individuals
shy away from it.
What's the point in trying to learn something when the only time you
get
attention is when you make a mistake.
So while it was certainly true that there were PLMs and training more
readily available in the past, it is equally true that many techies
learned
because of mistakes and errors, whereas today there is little praise
and
much blame for those taking on those tasks.
Adam
Good question. For professional training (which costs $$$$$$), it is
likely
the business environment. But I've also had users refuse to take free,
internal, courses because they: (1) don't have the time; (2) already
know
all that stuff; and (3) don't want to bother because software should be
"intuitive" (i.e. should do what I want/need, not what I tell it to).
------------------------------**------------------------------**
----------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
------------------------------**------------------------------**
----------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
------------------------------**------------------------------**
----------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
------------------------------**------------------------------**----------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
