Skip to main content

Belligerent users and anti change fiends

Now I am all for users. In fact I am a user myself. However every now and again you come across one or ten of those fiendish knaves that just completely refuse to play the game. I won't go into an exact story because there is no need. We all have faced them. Those ill favoured folk that call you and make outrageous claims that they can not see an "ok" button on the screen they are looking at.

Ugh, obviously you must be patient with such types. But my biggest problem is the infectious foolery they cause. When one person says they can not get something working or it is going "slow". The other demented parrots start shouting the same and demanding to know what is wrong. It seems to be a culture thing where people feel good about not understanding how to use a computer. This has gone on for a good while now but computers are so engrained now, to take this attitude is utterly ludicrous. What I find even worse are those beastly folk that purport to be IT professionals and still can not even complete the most simple of tasks such as creating an appointment in Outlook.

I worked on a school open evening (looking for prospective A Level Computer Science Students) and there was a young lad looking to start in September. His mum was behind him and before he could even say "I want to make computer games" his mum had interceded on his behalf just to tell me that she hates computers, she doesn't know anything about them and she thinks we'd all be better off without them. I make a point of avoiding such fools normally but as her son was looking to get on to the course I felt obliged to respond. I suggested that the entire economy is underpinned by computer technology and therefore they are fairly important. She dismissed this with a pah! (She clearly believes still that magic is the predominant force that makes the countries economy go round, mmm then again..)

Anyway... I created this simple diagram, please feel free to print it off and put round the office. It should help most people find what they are looking for on the computer.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

An instantiated object should be "ok"

I've been QA'ing quite a bit of work recently and one common theme I've noticed across both Java and C# projects I have been looking at is that we occasionally open ourselves up unessacarily to Exceptions by the way objects are being created. My general rule of thumb (which I have seen mentioned in a Pluralsight video recently but also always re-iterate in various Robust Software talks I have done) is that you shouldn't be able to create an object and then call a method or access a property that then throws an exception. At worst, it should return null (I'm not going to moan about that now). I've created an example below. We have two Dojos, one is good and one is bad. The bad dojo looks very familiar though. It's a little class written in the style that seems often encouraged. In fact, many classes start life as something like this. Then as years go on, you and other colleagues add more features to the class and it's instantiation becomes a second

Accessing the UI Thread with Tasks in F#

I have a Windows Forms program written in F# that can deploy a code base to n number of sites at once (you select the sites you would like to deploy to and it goes off and completes a number of tasks (backing up current sites, various unpacking and moving of files etc... ). Once you start it, it begins it's merry journey and begins to update the UI with what has happened. At the moment this method of updating the UI is not pretty because the threads I am doing the work on can't update the UI so I perform some fiendery to make that happen (don't ask). I knew there was a better way using some newer .NET features but I just hadn't got round to having a fiddle yet. I have now found that if you use the built in Task class but break your code up in a nicer way and then chain the tasks together you can then pass the correct context into the task that you want to talk to the UI. Here's a little script to give you a feel for it. You can press the "start" butt

NESTA - Next Gen.

via nesta.org.uk Following on from an article on the BBC about Raspberry Pi, this next gen report has some interesting findings. The scariest stat which I picked out from the BBC website was "out of the 28,767 teachers who were awarded Qualified Teacher Status... in 2010, only three qualified in computing or computing science as their primary qualification" Having worked as a computer science teacher for a year in a school that was a specialist in Computing I can concur that the uptake in Comp Sci was woeful. 2 Students for A2... The other teachers backgrounds in Computer Science was also fairly woeful (most knowing a bit about Office but still a paltry amount even about that). I couldn't speak for my counterpart that I was covering however. I suspect they were fairly up on things. All in all what kills me is that Computer science is not a secondary level subject. Areas are often covered, a little in IT, a little in DT subjects (if kids choose Systems and Contr