"Dummies" books (was Re: New 6.0 Features - Sell what you got fellas)

[Fairlight]

In the relative spacial/temporal region of
Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 10:45:18AM -0400, Nancy Palmquist achieved the spontaneous
generation of the following:
> 
> I have to add that the normal Computer Phobes like the "BLAH for 
> DUMMIES" series of books.  They don;t feel threatened by the normal 
> level of computer related books.  Programmers as a rule write very bad 
> books.  It is hard for them to make a concept understandable to normal 
> people.  I think it is incomprehensible to them that everyone does not 
> know something they find so simple.  It is an arrogance that is very 
> basic to books and training in this industry.

If they don't feel threatened by the normal level of computer related
books, why don't they read them?

Why do you draw a distinction between programmers and "normal people"
(whatever the hell -that- is).  Please, do define "normal" for me.  I've
gotta hear this.  No matter what the answer, I'm pretty sure I need not
apply, but the explanation alone should prove quite entertaining.

What's utterly incomprehensible is that people apparently can't use simple
logic and deductive reasoning.  That's all programming is, is logic.
It's unfathomable that someone can pick up a piece of documentation that
explains the exact flow of something, and not be able to follow the line
that's been drawn between the dots, assuming the documentation was complete
and accurate.

It's not arrogance, it's a state of shock that one goes into when you've
already written it once, you went to all the trouble of writing it in clear
and concise English a -second- time, and that still "isn't good enough"
because people refuse to rub two neurons together and produce a spark.

> I think in a small way, they like people to think them all-knowing, and 
> tell the end user that they could not understand this or that.

No, we wish the end-user would grab a Clue x 4 from aisle 7 and hit
themselves with it before asking questions that are addressed IN THE DOCS!

> I always encourage customers to learn more about their computers.  I 
> show them how to do something instead of telling them they can not 
> understand how.

This is a Good Thing[tm]--so long as you're not advocating tossing random
options at commands and praying that one of them fixes a problem with a
subsystem or program they know nothing about, and therefore shouldn't be
dinking with on their own without assistance from documentation or someone
that does understand the issue.

> I remember when I started with Windows and I looked all over for a 
> definition of "system tray".  Never did find one but all the books 
> assume that I knew what it was.  That kind of basic information is 
> missing and causes users much grief and frustration. (Please don't post 
> a definition - I got it figured out.)

You're kidding, right?  I don't think I've seen a manual for Windows since
3.1, and -that- was a big white one with a green top stripe, and I used it
to look up some pretty high level stuff that wasn't in the DOS 'help'
command.  I thought system tray, used in context, was pretty self
explanatory.  It's precisely this kind of thing that will drive a
documentation author to the brink of suicide--readers that can't follow
context clues, and who need -every- -single- -last- -detail- spelled out
for them, letter for letter.  Anyone that can't follow context clues
doesn't have a -math- problem, or even a technical problem--they need to go
back to remedial English (or whatever the appropriate language is, in which
the documentation was written).  That's a basic reading comprehension
issue--the kind that makes you wonder how some get through life at all.

The Dummies books don't generally teach you how things work, in any event.
They teach you a few tricks and how to do a few things, but none of the
"why's" that would let you extrapolate beyond what's presented to tackle
other situations.  Of course, if someone is the kind of person that needs
the Dummies books anyway, you don't want to put too much of a strain on
them, I suppose.  They're doomed forever to a life of rote regurgitation of
poor and incomplete techniques.  As Bill Vermillion would day, there's a
difference between being taught and being educated.  The Dummies books fall
into the "taught" category--at best--IMNSHO.

(Someone PLEASE tell me there's not a UNIX for Dummies out there already.
That would frighten me so much.  It would -explain- a lot of the things
I've seen people do, but it would still scare the hell out of me.)

> If a person has basic skill in logic (Geometry class seems to be the 
> best indicator - not math or algrebra), they can have success with 
> filePro.  A very basic skill and many people are surprised to find they 
> have the gene.  Sometimes you have to get past the phobe that they are 
> bad at math, a legecy of a poor education system that needs revision to 
> actually train people to think not regurgitate.

I was programming in BASIC at age 8 on the Apple ][+, including limited
sound on the Apple as well as joystick control on the Apple and later on
the Coleco Adam system (essentially an Apple clone).  I didn't hit Geometry
until I was 13.  It's not like they taught symbolic or any other logic
courses before 3rd grade.  Programming is logic, which boils down to your
basic common sense--"I need to do something.  I need to get from point A
to point B.  What sequence of events are necessary for that to become a
reality.  Okay, we need these events.  What commands, in what order, will
create that chain of events?"  I came to that conclusion after about five
minutes with an AppleSoft BASIC manual when I decided I wanted to write
games (I've been a game addict since '78).

If someone can't handle that elementary logical progression of thought, I
don't trust them near anything more complex than the pocket calculators
that banks give out as freebies--certainly not a programmable graphing
calculator like a TI-60 or HP-48.

And as for math, that's the sole reason I never got a CS degree.  I failed
pre-calculus in high school and gave up higher math as a bad lot.  As CS
was considered an engineering degree at my university, there was no way
in hell I thought I could make it through five semesters of calculus.
There are programming instances where I've needed to ask someone what
formula we're actually -using- for something, but given that, the code
itself is trivial.  I've never let my lacklustre math skills stop me from
programming.  I personally don't see programming as math, while others do.
I've talked to Bill Vermillion and he can do the shift to binary and back
for things.  I don't think that way.  My mind isn't equipped for math at
that kind of effortless level.  I just go about coding pragmatically, and
work out the details with 'bc' if needs dictate it when I get to any sticky
bits.

And it's not just the educational system (though I agree it needs a serious
overhaul).  It's just some basic aversion people have to prolonged or
intense logical thought--anything more complicated than following a recipe
to make dinner, or managing to drive to the grocery store.  That's the only
way I can explain an unwillingness to sit down and figure out something
that anyone -should- be able to do, barring severe retardation or similar.
Sometimes I think it's Silver Platter Syndrome.  That's -why- Windows is so
popular--it supposedly negates the need for conscious thought while using
a computer.  People still manage to screw things up for themselves.  (And
why, -why- does nobody ever screw things down?)

> Well I best get back to work.  Sorry about the rant.  One of my pet topics.

Yeah, well don't mind me.  4.5hrs sleep here, tops.  More like 4.  And my
body is -very- confused about what it should be doing.  Body says,
"Zzzzzz," and brain says, "*Boing!*"  Not a good combo.  

mark->
-- 
Bring the web-enabling power of OneGate to -your- filePro applications today!

Try the live filePro-based, OneGate-enabled demo at the following URL:
               http://www2.onnik.com/~fairlite/flfssindex.html