|
Chiristian wrote
I was saying just that I'd never heard it before, but now I'm saying you're obviously stupid.
A stupid always thinks rest of world is stupid
Chiristian wrote
I've not looked at the code, but either way, 5,000 or 100,000 are both an idiotic number of values to store in a flat file.
It cannot be anyone else but a real stupid who start teasing others without knowing what is the root cause of debate, May be understanding stupid code also need a little intelligence, which completely lacks in a stupid.
This world is full of stupids, and they cannot hide themselves.
George Burnad Shah
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous wrote:
An stupid always thinks rest of world is stupid
I know you are but what am I ? What, are you 8 ?
It's obvious that English is not your first language, but can I advise you that anyone dickless enough to attack articles from the position of anonymous posts, without making any constructive comments, is always going to be thought of as a moron ?
Anonymous wrote:
This world is full of stupids, and they cannot hide themselves.
George Burnad Shah
LOL - that's truly funny. Was there a Shah called George Burnad ? Or do you mean 'George Bernad Shaw' ? He was too well written a man to form a sentence as poorly as that you are presenting. I don't like to criticise people for spelling and grammar when it's clear they do not speak English, but you've already made a fool of yourself by
1. Choosing to attack an article by calling the author 'stupid' instead of making constructive comments
2. Doing so anonymously ( gutlessly )
3. Deciding to start a fight with me, when all I said was that you used a phrase I'd never heard before
4. Quoting an author whose name you cannot spell, and obviously in paraphrase. If it's a quote, then quote him. The source you use to do so will show you how to spell his name. If you're just making it up as you go, don't put someone elses name next to it.
Christian
No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer.
- Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
C# will attract all comers, where VB is for IT Journalists and managers - Michael
P Butler 05-12-2002
Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not
as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002
|
|
|
|
|
Are YouStupid?
Summary:
Opponents of the usability movement claim that it focuses on stupid users and that most users can easily overcome complexity. In reality, even smart users prefer pursuing their own goals to navigating idiosyncratic designs. As Web use grows, the price of ignoring usability will only increase.
Usability opponents often complain that we user advocates are overly focused on stupid people. They commonly claim that:
We select stupid users for usability studies; our findings do not apply to smarter users.
Our recommendation to make simplicity a major design goal stems from our misguided view that all users are stupid. In reality, they claim, many users are capable of navigating complex sites.
Some people are so stupid that technology is beyond their grasp; making websites easy enough for everyone to navigate is an unrealistic goal.
I'll now address each of these claims, and then examine how attitudes about usability and user intelligence will impact business as the Internet population grows.
"Test Users are Stupid"
Typically, when project managers observe their design undergoing a usability test, their initial reaction is: Where did you find such stupid users?
This is exactly what happened recently when I released a WAP usability study. The study concluded that using WAP (to access the Internet through mobile phones) is too difficult for most purposes. In response, a group of big WAP investors rejected the findings, issuing a press release that claimed that the study's outcome would have been different if we had tested experienced WAP users. Although this might be true, their response misses the point.
First, it ignores the fact that users' initial experience with a new technology is crucial. People will never become experienced users unless they are capable of learning the technology in the first place.
Second, our study's participants used WAP phones for a week, and we tested them both at the beginning and the end of the period. If a full week of use is insufficient to learn a user interface, we are surely not talking about a mainstream consumer technology.
Usability lessons are not always easy to take. It is a painful experience to sit in the back room watching as a user clicks every button on the screen except the one button that "obviously" leads to the answer. The first time project members observe a usability study, they almost always lapse into denial about the true lessons of the experience.
Until we bring in the second user. He or she typically has many of the same problems as the first user. Then the third user comes in, and again: many of the same problems. At this point, designers often start to soften to the users' plight. If not, the fourth or fifth user will do the trick.
When people have problems using a design, it's not because they are stupid. It's because the design is too difficult.
"Real Users Don't Mind Complex Design"
Enthusiasts sometimes defend bleeding-edge technology and complex designs with the claim that users actually like sophisticated websites. Users, they assert, are smart enough to handle complicated design.
These enthusiasts labor under a miscomprehension about the Web's fundamental nature. It is not a question of whether users are capable of overcoming complexity and learning an advanced user interface. It is a question of whether they are willing to do so.
I have conducted many usability studies with users who had immense computer experience, great aptitude for technology, and high levels of IQ and education. These users are just like anybody else: they just want to get their work done. They have neither the desire nor the time to learn the idiosyncrasies of individual websites.
If you have doubts, run a test with network system administrators or international investment analysts, for example. What you'll discover is that they face plenty of complicated problems in their own work and they don't want to devote brain cells to your website or its design. They want to get in, get out, and move on with their own tasks.
Design complexity is a barrier for users. While they certainly might be capable of jumping the barrier, why should they? The Web is about freedom of movement. Anything that stands in the way of immediate task completion will negatively impact the user's experience.
"Some People are Too Stupid to Serve"
Some people are smarter than others. Most readers of this column probably belong to the top 10% of the population in terms of intelligence. From such a vantage point, it is easy to think of other people as being stupid. But perhaps it is more fair and more accurate (not to mention more productive) to assume that the other 90% of the population form the mainstream audience. Not that they are stupid.
Nonetheless, it might be true that some people do not have enough intelligence to use sophisticated and advanced high-tech systems. But are they online? Not likely at this point.
Even in the most wired societies like the United States and Scandinavia, only half the population is currently using the Internet. It continues to be quite an elitist medium. Thus, almost by definition at this point, anyone who is now using the Web is probably a fairly smart person. Given this, it makes no sense to blame users' difficulty with a site or design on stupidity. When current Web users have problems, it's because the design is too difficult.
Looking Ahead
As the Internet keeps growing, it will reach ever-broader segments of the population. Five years from now we might in fact have people online who could be indelicately described as stupid. Whether or not such people should be included or excluded from the Web is a political and social question:
What percentage of the population can we exclude from the new economy?
From my perspective, the answer is "very few." Politicians might say "zero," which is an honorable but unrealistic goal. Literacy offers a good analogy here: While all rich countries aim at zero illiteracy, there are always some children who don't learn to read. Nonetheless, we cannot accept high illiteracy rates and expect to maintain a prosperous society.
As far as meeting the need for Internet usability, we have yet to scratch the surface. Very few websites are easy enough to continue supporting users when the Internet reaches 80% of the population. To serve 95% of the population (let alone 99%), substantial advances in usability will be required.
Disregarding political and moral issues, the broadening user base poses a very simple business question: What percentage of your prospects will you turn away because they are not smart enough to use your website? Maybe 10% of your potential customers? Or perhaps 20%? That's a lot of dollars lost to an elitist attitude.
And, even if you accept a 20% loss in customers because your site is too difficult, you still need a site easy enough for 80% of the population to use. Considering that most sites are too difficult for the 50% of the population that is currently online, companies will have to substantially improve their usability to willingly abandon that "acceptable" 20%.
George Burnad Shah
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous wrote:
George Burnad Shah
According to google, there is no such author, so you'll forgive me that I've not heard of him.
Christian
No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer.
- Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
C# will attract all comers, where VB is for IT Journalists and managers - Michael
P Butler 05-12-2002
Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not
as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Christian,
I forgive you & google on this lackness of knowledge. Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
Well this is George Bernad Shaw and not Shah.
Aisha Ikram
|
|
|
|
|
God made mankind without Unique Constraint on the names
George Burnad Shah
|
|
|
|
|
... assuming there is a God. It's likely that both George Burnad Shah and George Burnad Shaw, whether one in the same or otherwise, are just people with opinions like everyone else.
Having said that, opinions have no place on a website in which developers share useful sources of information and require facts.
But that's just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
you stole this you coward!!!!!!!!: http://home.thirdage.com/Humor/funnycell/designflaw.html
remco
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone who complains about the speed of this class is obviosuly using it for the wrong reason, its a great simple to use little class for storing a couple of sections and a couple or pairs per sections, just like it was intended for.....100,000?
Anyone who moans and gripes? If your so good why are you copying someone elses class in the first place? Obviosuly you can do a better job, i look forward to seeing the code posted.
Many thanks for this, it has saved me a couple of hours.
Ryan
|
|
|
|
|
This article and the code really helped me. Good job, keep it up
ahmed
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks
@!$h@
|
|
|
|
|
Your class won't work on SYSTEM.INI on older Windows systems. The SYSTEM.INI file on those systems is not nicely formed, i.e., there could be duplicate key names, as shown below:
[386Enh]
device=dva.386
32BitDiskAccess=on
AllVMsExclusive=1
AutoRestoreScreen=on
CGA40WOA.FON=CGA40WOA.FON
CGA80WOA.FON=CGA80WOA.FON
device=*biosxlat
device=*BLOCKDEV
device=*cdpscsi
device=*combuff
device=*dosmgr
device=*int13
device=*PAGEFILE
device=*pageswap
In your demo app, entering a key name of "device" and clicking on "Show Key Value" displays a value of "*pageswap".
For this situation, you would need something like FindFirstKey() and FindNextKey().
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks , you suggestions are noted, i will test the demo project for SYSTEM.INI and modify the class if required.
Aisha
@ish@
|
|
|
|
|
Good luck. It's a pity that Microsoft won't give us the APIs that they use to do this stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just look at MSDN... GetPrivateProfileSection
|
|
|
|
|
I just had to write an app to open ODBC without DSN and I had to find exact name of driver. So I guess I'm gonna use ur class in my code to dive into ini and get the name of driver.
Thanks and keep it up.
In my dream, I was dorwning my §orrow§
But my §orrow§, they learned to §wim
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you so much . I would like you to rate my article.
@ish@
|
|
|
|
|