Re: [agile-usability] Re: Today's article on UseIt.com
- On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Owen Thomas <owen.paul.thomas@...> wrote:
> Hi AdamYes. I can't think of an occupation that wouldn't benefit from some
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Adam Sroka" <adam.sroka@...>
>> [T]he military
>> has developed technology for doing exactly what you suggest (Fighting
>> fires remotely)[.]
> Yes, I have heard about that. I may, as you suggest, not have given an
> ideal analogy. My impressions are that no occupation wouldn't benefit to
> some degree if virtual or remote collaboration were employed. Would you
form of collaboration. I can even think of some where remote might be
nearly as good as actual, face-to-face collaboration, but I'm still
not convinced that software is one of those.
>> On the other hand, I am not aware of many professions, fire-fightersYeah. And, to make your point for you, both rely heavily on constant
>> and soldiers included, where practitioners actually prefer to be
>> somewhere other than where the action is.
> True. Indeed, I prefer to be where the action is; in my head. I also
> find that surrounding myself with those things that I'm familiar with
> and help me to relax to keep me in my head; where I'm most comfortable
> and feel most personally productive.
> About the firefighter/soldier analogy and virtual collaboration. These
> two occupations would definitely benefit. Both require working in
> adverse conditions. Both require intimate and accurate knowledge about
> the working environment. Both require close teamwork to achieve a goal
> (a mission) which is directed by some point of control who itself, needs
> intimate and accurate knowledge of the facts as soon as they evolve.
radio communication. That way team members can communicate and
coordinate their actions even when they are separated by significant
In fact, recon soldiers can go days without having a "normal"
conversation, but would rarely go hours without radio communication.
On the other hand, recon is also a good example of my point. Despite
hundreds of orbiting satellites, aircraft with the capability to pick
out minute details from a safe distance, unmanned aerial drones, etc.
the military still finds it useful to risk putting men on the ground
far away from support. Why? Because, no sensor yet devised can equal
the five senses of a trained observer.
>> Most of the time it has to"the action" starts with the Customer asking for a feature, then
>> do with saving money and/or lives. Software developers, so far as I am
>> able to tell, are unique in wanting simultaneously to work and to not
>> be where the work is happening.
> Where do you think the action is happening in software development? Not
> in one's head - the same place as I do?
proceeds through a conversation about what that feature means, one or
more tests, and an actual implementation. Usually there is some back
and forth through that process, and there are multiple points where
conversation is needed.
The part that happens in my head is relatively small. Usually starts
with "How would I test that?" And then later, "Why is that test
failing?" Often times these questions are answered faster when they
are spoken aloud. Sometimes, disconcertingly so (My pair has an answer
before I've fully formulated the question.)
>> The first example I am aware of in Star Trek was the first movie.LOL. Oh, the power of wikipedia.
> I apologise. You do seem to be considerably more learned about sci-fi.
> I'll try to remember not to make controversial assertions in your
> presence without prefacing these assertions with a standard disclaimer
> similar to "I think...".
> > There are other studies (I don't have the exact quote) that showthat
> > the difference between a top-notch developer and a run-of-the-millone
> > is a factor of 10 or so.http://forums.construx.com/blogs/stevemcc/archive/2008/03/27/productivit
> The back up for that is here :-
Thx James. I always assumed that this was indeed supported by actual
studies, but still had a small nagging doubt that it might be one of
those urban legends that start with "studies show that ...." ;-). This
is a good reference which eliminates that doubt.