Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:03:49 04/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 06, 2004 at 17:53:58, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On April 06, 2004 at 17:07:42, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>>>Editing one line in the winboard ini-file is not rocket science, not even for >>>>techno-phobes I think. >>> >>>It's just something 99.9% of the customers is not capable of doing. >> >>You're just making up numbers, the number is distorted because you never hear >>complaints from those who succeed. >> >>>First of all they have *no clue* that they must modify it. >> >>It is possible they have no clue, but then they won't have much use for a chess >>engine either. It goes hand in hand at some level. >> >>>>Arena can scan your harddrive for available engines, so all you have to do is >>>>download them and unzip them. >>> >>>You still must find that button to do it and know it has that capability or it >>>won't succeed. >> >>Of course, and if they can't they have much bigger problems anyway, like how to >>find the "power on" switch :) >> >>Seriously. >>You are expecting programmers to design software for users >>*) who are scared of techno, >>*) who can't install from a CD, >>*) who doesn't know what a file is, >>*) who can't browse a menu and >>*) who can't push buttons. > >If software just must take into account those points then it's still easy to >create software. Software also needs to be > >*) foolproof This is a laudable goal, but even with a validated Ada compiler and MIL-STD-498 conformance, Arianne 5 still went "Kaboom" The most stringent programs in the world with costs of hundreds of dollars per line of code still have defects. So I think terms like "fullproof", "bulletproof", "bug-free" etc. are never going to be fully realized. Even if you spent one million dollars per routine and did formal proving of every algorithm and every line, the proof can also have a defect. That's on the one hand. On the other hand, we should aim for foolproof as nearly as we can approximate it. >Because in general a reasonable % of the users after installing new software >product is getting an information overload. the reaction that happens then is at >best described as: "Utter panic and clicking all clickable areas until the >software shows some type of response they recognize. Usually combined with 100 >times pressing the ENTER key" > >>Good luck writing software to these people, I give up on those. > >Don't worry, i happily create software that's foolproof. > >>Luckly, I think we are dealing with a minory among the computer chess interested >>folks! > >Computerchess is a technical sport. > >If you do not see the average chessproduct user as a computerchess enthusiast, >because he doesn't know much from computers, then there is something very wrong >with you. > >>-S.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.