On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 07:58:24AM +1000, Jan Whitaker wrote:
> At 05:17 PM 29/07/02 +1000, Ann Moffatt wrote:
> >as a 'girl' it was always very easy to be ever so humble & apologetic
> >for using simple terms to explain techo stuff. (sorry other 'girl
> >linkers', i know that's not fashionable or PC now but in my day it
> >was useful.) the result was watching execs becoming empowered to ask
> >sensible, relevant questions & knowing it was useful to them because
> >they used me as a source again & again!!
>
> Ann et al, I don't think it's really 'girl' explanations, I think it's
> just explaining things in the language that everyday people understand
> - simple, clear, non-technical - [...]
have to agree there (although not neccessarily with the 'humble and
apologetic' bit. i've been accused of many things, but humble isn't one
of them :-)
i've spent a fairly large percentage of my time throughout my career (as
programmer, systems/network admin and similar tech roles) explaining
fairly complicated technology issues to non-technical people in as clear
and simple (and non-threatening) language as possible. it's essential
if you want to get a budget approved, and it's essential if you don't
want to be asked the same stupid questions every day (educate your users
to help themselves and they'll stop bothering you with the trivial
stuff)
on a more general note, as a tech i actually don't trust the technical
abilities of someone who ISN'T capable of explaining what they're doing
and WHY in plain language - in my experience, that's a sign that they
have no real understanding themselves, they're just doing cargo-cult
programming(*) or similar.
if non-techs had the same attitude, things would be very different.
instead, they seem too scared to admit that they have no idea what their
tame tech was mumbling about (from the tech's POV, this is known as
"baffling them with bullshit").
btw, that's also a reason why it's a good thing for a good tech to have
junior techs around that they have to train. the act of explanation and
teaching often enhances your own understanding.
(*) i.e. "this bit of code worked there, so let's cut and paste it here and
maybe it'll work". sometimes it does. but that's a matter of luck, there's no
understanding.
>From Jargon File (4.3.1, 29 Jun 2001) [jargon]:
cargo cult programming n. A style of (incompetent) programming
dominated by ritual inclusion of code or program structures that
serve no real purpose. A cargo cult programmer will usually explain
the extra code as a way of working around some bug encountered
in the past, but usually neither the bug nor the reason the code
apparently avoided the bug was ever fully understood (compare
{shotgun debugging}, {voodoo programming}).
The term `cargo cult' is a reference to aboriginal religions that
grew up in the South Pacific after World War II. The practices of
these cults center on building elaborate mockups of airplanes and
military style landing strips in the hope of bringing the return
of the god-like airplanes that brought such marvelous cargo during
the war. Hackish usage probably derives from Richard Feynman's
characterization of certain practices as "cargo cult science" in
his book "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" (W. W. Norton & Co,
New York 1985, ISBN 0-393-01921-7).
craig
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
-- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
