|
In my view, partially correct. It's not the user (definitely) but it's not the docs either. The docs are never read so how can they be at fault?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
The issue is in the whole process that lead to the event, not the failure of a single actor, the documentation writer made a mistake that went unchecked (possibly because the project wasn't properly explained to them), the software wasn't properly tested and the hardware wasn't resilient enough.
The only possibility in which the user could have been considered at fault would be if they didn't read the (incorrect) documentation 
Edit: it's nice to see that nobody blamed exclusively the sw dev
|
|
|
|
|
It's important to identify the source or sources of the problem in order take measures to reduce the likelihood of it happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely, but identifying the source of problems has nothing to do with finding a singular scapegoat that is "at fault" which will reduce the probability that someone will flag their mistake early and instead hope nothing will happen.
And consider that scapegoating is especially harmful when we know many problems exist and are not caused by a single person
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes it is necessary, specially on customer and provider relationship.
It needs to be done so for damage compensation purposes. In such a situation who's to blame is important on the broad scope, less important on the customer's and provider's own scopes. Then it is important to identify the flaws in the process that could've prevented the issue on either side.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
Either multiple choice or better choices.
The only one that is NOT guilty (in my opinion) is the user. All the rest should be, at least partly, liable.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Since the hypothetical situation states that the documentation was obviously (in this context obvious to the user) incorrect, then the user was invoking the documentation as authority rather than taking responsibility for their action. There is plenty of fault upstream of the user but it doesn't relinquish the user of using good judgement.
|
|
|
|
|
Doug Domeny wrote: in this context obvious to the user
I didn't see it like this.
If the user knew it was wrong... then he has part of responsibility too.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
where the project manager in this list
company accepting fault and helping to resolve the issue, if in money or replacement
release statement that fault, and follow up other sales
programmer can add some fault tolerance next time
documentation and tester crossover that documentation followed for issues
work environment that allows for implementation errors to be raised, tracked, and resolved and retested.
|
|
|
|
|
Incorrect documentation and designing a system that is not intuitive to use and requires following a manual to use it correctly.
Some companies do not care to keep internal and customer documentation up to date.
I follow the fool-proof principle (aka defensive design) that the system should be designed in a way that is difficult to use incorrectly and easy/intuitive to use.
|
|
|
|
|
Shao Voon Wong wrote: I follow the fool-proof principle (aka defensive design) that the system should be designed in a way that is difficult to use incorrectly and easy/intuitive to use.
Fail safe systems fail by failing to fail fail safe.
|
|
|
|
|
The Boeing 737 Max MCAS bug, for which the end-users (pilots) took the initial blame.
|
|
|
|
|
Well.... expensive and deadly enough....
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
