richard wrote:
I agree with that, Its very hard to write documentation at a level that's easy to understand, but not offensive to those with some knowledge.
The main observation I have is the more knowledgeable a person becomes the harder it is for them to communicate. There is a lot to be said for proof reading by a novice.
However, the posting that started this thread the standard of English was poor, and could be interpreted in many ways.
Richard _______________________________________________ wine-users mailing list wine-users@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wine-users
Hi All,
I've not used WINE to a major degree, wanting to get my system to behave itself with the hardware first before I dump Windows and go to a pure Linux environment. However I have worked for 7 years in a tech support capacity, so I find myself in a position where I sympathise with both camps.
The developers / programmers are all experienced *computer* users, not just Linux or Windows users, and in general like myself have probably grown up with an RTFM mentality. When I started in computers you had to know what you were doing because if you didn't the only answer you got was "read the f'ing manual" (RTFM). Hence I grew with computers in a self-help environment. This mindset can lead to frustration when faced with a request/demand for help from someone who it is clear has not made any attempt to help themself.
This is where this thread, predictably in my view, kicked off with a complaint/demand for help from someone who
a) appears to have poor English skills. However English is my ONLY language so I refuse to berate someone who is obviously struggling to make himself understood but at least is making the effort. If English is his first language and he is simply very bad at it (and with some of the customers I've spoken to that's not impossible) then I rescind that somewhat kind viewpoint. Many a time I've had to choke my response to "oh you mean the double dot.. don't use your jargon on me!" simply because I've asked the customer to enter a colon.
b) has not made much if any attempt to help himself, despite his claim of having tried for two years. Does "trying for two years" simply mean running WINE every couple of months in the blind hope it will work this time?
c) Does have a *valid* point regarding documentation.
I have A Level Computer Studies (apologies to those not in the UK but this is a qualification attained before leaving school at age 18 ish, so draw your own comparisons). During the compilation of my practical programming project work I had to include full documentation of how the programs worked. When I wrote my documentation I aimed at the "shallow end of the gene pool" or to put it kinder, the novice user. I was explicit in what could and could not be done, giving clear examples of valid data entry and made sure that it was proofed by at least one other person.
The environment today has changed radically from when I started in computers 20 years ago. The RTFM mentality has given way to the T/SMH mentality (Tell/Show Me How). I should not complain unduly since it is the existence of this mentality which has kept me in employment the last seven years. It goes without saying that T/SMH and RTFM do not sit well with each other.
Programmers / developers, even experienced users have to accept the fact that not everyone is willing/able to RTFM anymore. However users/novices have to respect the fact that the former group are (as has been mentioned before) giving freely of their time and energy, and a little gratitude would not go amiss. I am sure there is a happy middle ground along the lines of:
"Hi X,
To answer your question fully would take some time, but have a look at the following links.
link1 link2 link3
etc.
If you have any questions after reading these, please feel free to ask."
This approach is not an unhelpful one as it gives the user advice on where to find what they need, without "spoon-feeding" them. I know several of the regular contributors here do use this technique and I am happy to see it.
If the user responds with a comment to the effect that they wanted help not links, then my attitude does harden to "tough... you've been shown where to get the answer, so go read it". If on the other hand (going back to documentation) the referred websites are full of esoteric acronyms, I would not be surprised or object to the questioner coming back with a supplemental "OK, but about point 1, how do I do X?" as that proves they have at least tried to help themselves.
To summarise, questioners need to ask specific questions, and at least *TRY* to understand any answers/ websites they are given. However equally those who answer need to be mindful that the person they are responding to may not necessarily know how to "compile the latest source" or "provide us with the debug output". Could I suggest, please, that where such comments are made that a little extra time is given to explaining how to obtain that which has been asked for?
I hope I have not unduly upset anyone with my comments above. I have been lurking on this forum for just over a year now and I have always been impressed with the dedication of those who respond to the regular please for help. You are all doing a great job, and this is the first time I have seen this issue blow up in the way it has on this occasion.
Kind regards,
Julian _______________________________________________ wine-users mailing list wine-users@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wine-users
