I want to know UNIX. I like the stable machines.
But, wow, it seems nothing from my experience with other operating systems transfers. I want to say it's like trying to learn to drive in England if you grew up driving in the USA, but I think it's even more different than that. Using computers regularly feels like it changes the way our brains are wired. Apparently, Windows wires our brain in such a way that it becomes impossible to adapt to other operating systems. Is it a Microsoft conspiracy? Who knows.
Whatever the case, UNIX could truly be taught over the course of an entire semester.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Sunday, December 03, 2006
End User Computing
No matter how many times I hear it, I still find it a little shocking whenever I hear that the price of a computer purchase is really only about 20% the Total Cost of Ownership for a computer user in the workplace (Martin et al. 2005, 440). Both this chapter of our textbook and the article, "Building Systems That Users Want to Use," demonstrate the importance of understanding end-user computing and how it effects productivity and the bottom line.
Reading the Malhotra and Galletta article reminded me of the importance of understanding user motivation and system usage. Also, we have to remember that, while a few people might be interested in learning new technology skills, most workers just want to use their computer system as a means to an end--getting their work done. Therefore, if a new system is perceived as being harder to use, making it harder to accomplish tasks, then workers are going to feel low motivation to use it.
Nielsen's "big five" usability principles, though written for web sites, should also be considered when building systems that users want to use. Learnability, Efficiency, Memorability, Errors, and Satisfaction all effect the way workers feel about the software they use.
Ergonomics is always a sticky issue. Each person is so different that it is very difficult to design a configuration that is comfortable for the current user, yet will be flexible for the next person. I struggle with what is probably CVS (Clark 2006, 71), and I have tried almost everything but eye plugs (click here and scroll down to see a picture, which explains why I'm not going that route!) to accommodate the difficulty. Working in a literacy office, we often help adults who have characteristics of scotopic sensitivity and other vision problems. They want to use our educational software to improve their reading or to improve their own computer literacy skills, yet looking at the computer screen for more than a few minutes causes headaches.
I'm surprised that nothing was mentioned in these readings about accommodating users with disabilities. In planning for literacy computer labs, I wanted to be sure that we met guidelines for accessibility. The Americans with Disabilities Act Home Page was useful. The Clark article described the ergonomic problems sometimes caused by using a mouse. In our labs, we have computers available with trackball mice, for our customers with limited mobility. I've also heard that these kinds of pointing devices can be good for people who experience pain using a standard mouse.
Reading the Malhotra and Galletta article reminded me of the importance of understanding user motivation and system usage. Also, we have to remember that, while a few people might be interested in learning new technology skills, most workers just want to use their computer system as a means to an end--getting their work done. Therefore, if a new system is perceived as being harder to use, making it harder to accomplish tasks, then workers are going to feel low motivation to use it.
Nielsen's "big five" usability principles, though written for web sites, should also be considered when building systems that users want to use. Learnability, Efficiency, Memorability, Errors, and Satisfaction all effect the way workers feel about the software they use.
Ergonomics is always a sticky issue. Each person is so different that it is very difficult to design a configuration that is comfortable for the current user, yet will be flexible for the next person. I struggle with what is probably CVS (Clark 2006, 71), and I have tried almost everything but eye plugs (click here and scroll down to see a picture, which explains why I'm not going that route!) to accommodate the difficulty. Working in a literacy office, we often help adults who have characteristics of scotopic sensitivity and other vision problems. They want to use our educational software to improve their reading or to improve their own computer literacy skills, yet looking at the computer screen for more than a few minutes causes headaches.
I'm surprised that nothing was mentioned in these readings about accommodating users with disabilities. In planning for literacy computer labs, I wanted to be sure that we met guidelines for accessibility. The Americans with Disabilities Act Home Page was useful. The Clark article described the ergonomic problems sometimes caused by using a mouse. In our labs, we have computers available with trackball mice, for our customers with limited mobility. I've also heard that these kinds of pointing devices can be good for people who experience pain using a standard mouse.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Ethics and Secrets
Reading about ethics for this class made me think about part of an interview that I caught on NPR recently. It was probably a rerun of this one: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4568035
The interview was with Frank Warren, who has created a blog where he posts other people's secrets, http://postsecret.blogspot.com/. The one that I remember hearing on the radio was "all the people who knew me before 9/11 think I'm dead." Deontologically (can the word be constructed that way?), that person is behaving unethically. It's a lie, it harms the insurance companies, probably family and friends...but, who knows? Maybe with a consequentialistic point of view, that person feels that he or she has done the right thing because of some hard-to-understand situation.
Ok, so what does this have to do with IT? Unfortunately...nothing, really. I thought it would be an interesting read for you, and I had planned to search the postcards for computer or IT related secrets that I could use as ethical or unethical examples...but, it looks like the posts aren't really searchable...and now I have to go back to work (which is the ethical thing to do, and, just in case anyone is wondering, I wrote this post on my lunch break, and not on work time, because I try to be ethical with that kind of thing).
The interview was with Frank Warren, who has created a blog where he posts other people's secrets, http://postsecret.blogspot.com/. The one that I remember hearing on the radio was "all the people who knew me before 9/11 think I'm dead." Deontologically (can the word be constructed that way?), that person is behaving unethically. It's a lie, it harms the insurance companies, probably family and friends...but, who knows? Maybe with a consequentialistic point of view, that person feels that he or she has done the right thing because of some hard-to-understand situation.
Ok, so what does this have to do with IT? Unfortunately...nothing, really. I thought it would be an interesting read for you, and I had planned to search the postcards for computer or IT related secrets that I could use as ethical or unethical examples...but, it looks like the posts aren't really searchable...and now I have to go back to work (which is the ethical thing to do, and, just in case anyone is wondering, I wrote this post on my lunch break, and not on work time, because I try to be ethical with that kind of thing).
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Progress for Week of Nov. 22
We probably don't have a post due, since we are out of class for the holiday, but I thought I would post, just in case.
Working on our team project, I have found TechSoup.org to be incredibly helpful, especially the learning center. From there, and later from WebJunction, I came across TechAtlas, which seems like it would be really helpful for some libraries. With a free registration, it gives you some automated tools for some parts of technology planning, such as the technology inventory. According to their website "TechAtlas helps nonprofits [or libraries] map out technology - step by step."
The lecture posted last week was also very helpful. Some of it was a good review for things we learned in LIS5053, such as the different ways of gathering data. I found the "Analysis of System Use: Questions to Be Answered" and the "Analysis of System Users: Questions to Be Answered" very useful.
Working on our team project, I have found TechSoup.org to be incredibly helpful, especially the learning center. From there, and later from WebJunction, I came across TechAtlas, which seems like it would be really helpful for some libraries. With a free registration, it gives you some automated tools for some parts of technology planning, such as the technology inventory. According to their website "TechAtlas helps nonprofits [or libraries] map out technology - step by step."
The lecture posted last week was also very helpful. Some of it was a good review for things we learned in LIS5053, such as the different ways of gathering data. I found the "Analysis of System Use: Questions to Be Answered" and the "Analysis of System Users: Questions to Be Answered" very useful.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Diverse readings this week
System reliability, server logs, standard making...
I'm having my own issues with system reliability this week. My wireless connection on my laptop is not working. Sounds like a small thing, but we've now spent at least 9 total hours trying to fix it. As I went through the process of checking all the online help, downloading new drivers, beating my head on my desk, I thought about Butler's comments on individual and collective mindfulness. As a user, I was finding it very difficult to remain "mindful." Right now, at this time of the semester, I do not WANT to exhibit "mindful attention to abnormalities and alternative possibilities" (Butler 2006, 218). I just want everything to work! Yet, facing the dreaded tech support call, I knew that I should try everything I could to fix the problem because they would probably immediately ask me if I had tried the suggested steps online.
Well, they didn't. After three long hours, my wireless still doesn't work. I am now very, very good at installing and uninstalling drivers, however. Unfortunately, my computer now seems to be much less *reliable* that it was before. On Monday, everything worked fine except that I couldn't connect to the Internet via my wireless card. Now, all the "updates" and new drivers and everything that has been changed is causing all kinds of error messages to appear, and it's requesting me to migrate programs and all kinds of useless things. Now, my system is so slow it is basically unusable.
Our topic this week is technology environment management. This whole experience with tech support (nice, but useless in this case) and my computer problems has really brought home to me how little we notice our technology environment until something stops working. As Butler explains, we are so focused on our normal goals and procedures, having to stop and be mindful is very difficult (Butler 2006).
I'm having my own issues with system reliability this week. My wireless connection on my laptop is not working. Sounds like a small thing, but we've now spent at least 9 total hours trying to fix it. As I went through the process of checking all the online help, downloading new drivers, beating my head on my desk, I thought about Butler's comments on individual and collective mindfulness. As a user, I was finding it very difficult to remain "mindful." Right now, at this time of the semester, I do not WANT to exhibit "mindful attention to abnormalities and alternative possibilities" (Butler 2006, 218). I just want everything to work! Yet, facing the dreaded tech support call, I knew that I should try everything I could to fix the problem because they would probably immediately ask me if I had tried the suggested steps online.
Well, they didn't. After three long hours, my wireless still doesn't work. I am now very, very good at installing and uninstalling drivers, however. Unfortunately, my computer now seems to be much less *reliable* that it was before. On Monday, everything worked fine except that I couldn't connect to the Internet via my wireless card. Now, all the "updates" and new drivers and everything that has been changed is causing all kinds of error messages to appear, and it's requesting me to migrate programs and all kinds of useless things. Now, my system is so slow it is basically unusable.
Our topic this week is technology environment management. This whole experience with tech support (nice, but useless in this case) and my computer problems has really brought home to me how little we notice our technology environment until something stops working. As Butler explains, we are so focused on our normal goals and procedures, having to stop and be mindful is very difficult (Butler 2006).
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Risks for IT Projects
Recently, I agreed to join a small group of organizations to help test a prototype of a reporting system. The contractors/software people hope to develop a web-based program that will meet some very specific requirements...mostly requirements set by a national organization that wants data and reports from local groups from around the country. The actual users, those who will have to input all the data, do get to do user-testing (hence, the small group that I joined). They will have a real say about how easy the program is to use. However, it doesn't seem like we will have much input as to what the program is actually intended to do.
Therefore, reading the Baccarini, Salm, and Love article this week, I started thinking about the risks involved in this project. As I read, a few potential risks really jumped out at me. First of all, under "technology and technical issues," "application software not fit for purpose," seems like a very likely problem (Baccarini, Salm, and Love 2004, 288). From everything I have seen of the proposed software, it *adds* work to the staff at the organizations, without actually adding any value. They will be able to create reports for the national organization, but they will not actually be able to manage their data with this program. Essentially, two databases will have to be maintained--one that lets the program do day-to-day work, such as tracking customer information, progress, etc, and one that is just used to fill out forms to be sent somewhere else. Much of the same information will have to be kept in both places. I would say that this would lead to "low user satisfaction." The program seems really easy to use, just a duplication of effort.
I think this stems from "Incomplete requirements," (Baccarini, Salm, and Love 2004, 288). The authors discuss how getting too little information during the analysis phase can lead to creating a product that doesn't meet objectives. In this case, I think the product is designed to meet the objectives of the bigger organization--I just don't see how they will convince local organizations to use it as it is currently designed. I know that they did have some discussions with the front-line users before putting any software together. However, I get the impression that once they realized the scope of what an organization really needs in order to manage its data, they shied away from that side of things.
Finally, I want to mention "developing wrong software functionality" (Baccarini, Salm, and Love 2004, 288). In this case, I don't think that it is so much a question of software that "may not meet the purpose for which it is intended," (288), but more that it won't meet the purpose for which it is expected by the front-line users. I think users will be told that this program will make reporting so much easier, and they will therefore expect it to make all reporting easier. However, it will really only be useful for the reports required by the one national organizaiton.
I hope that the group can all work together to develop something that really is a value to the local organizations and the national organization. They seem very willing to listen, but, like any project, they are limited by time and money.
Therefore, reading the Baccarini, Salm, and Love article this week, I started thinking about the risks involved in this project. As I read, a few potential risks really jumped out at me. First of all, under "technology and technical issues," "application software not fit for purpose," seems like a very likely problem (Baccarini, Salm, and Love 2004, 288). From everything I have seen of the proposed software, it *adds* work to the staff at the organizations, without actually adding any value. They will be able to create reports for the national organization, but they will not actually be able to manage their data with this program. Essentially, two databases will have to be maintained--one that lets the program do day-to-day work, such as tracking customer information, progress, etc, and one that is just used to fill out forms to be sent somewhere else. Much of the same information will have to be kept in both places. I would say that this would lead to "low user satisfaction." The program seems really easy to use, just a duplication of effort.
I think this stems from "Incomplete requirements," (Baccarini, Salm, and Love 2004, 288). The authors discuss how getting too little information during the analysis phase can lead to creating a product that doesn't meet objectives. In this case, I think the product is designed to meet the objectives of the bigger organization--I just don't see how they will convince local organizations to use it as it is currently designed. I know that they did have some discussions with the front-line users before putting any software together. However, I get the impression that once they realized the scope of what an organization really needs in order to manage its data, they shied away from that side of things.
Finally, I want to mention "developing wrong software functionality" (Baccarini, Salm, and Love 2004, 288). In this case, I don't think that it is so much a question of software that "may not meet the purpose for which it is intended," (288), but more that it won't meet the purpose for which it is expected by the front-line users. I think users will be told that this program will make reporting so much easier, and they will therefore expect it to make all reporting easier. However, it will really only be useful for the reports required by the one national organizaiton.
I hope that the group can all work together to develop something that really is a value to the local organizations and the national organization. They seem very willing to listen, but, like any project, they are limited by time and money.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
How do we manage?
One of the readings this week, Mark Keil's "Pulling the plug: Software project management and the problem of project escalation," reminded me of the lecture that included the cautionary tale of a library system that hired a company, and several years after the project was supposed to be complete, they still didn't have anything operational. Yikes.
I've been thinking about how IT professionals track all the different machines and software at their organizations this week. Last week, one of the groups presented the idea of having a tag on each machine that held a record of its history, to help make the IT workers' jobs more efficient. We've talked about how more academic sites with a strong feeling of intellectual freedom and privacy rights might feel that Big Brother is trespassing on their space if IT were to dictate every computing detail. Yet, in a big corporation, everyone might be forced to have the same computer with the same set up, with very tight security to monitor it.
What is the best way to track all the different computers and the different set ups in a given organization? In our department, we have about 20 PCs for customer use. They all have special software that is not available on any other computers in the library system, and even those 20 are not all alike. Sometimes we feel frustrated in our office when IT re-images our computers, and we realize--too late--that some of the user information for some of the special programs has disappeared. We feel irritated that they can't keep the different computers straight, even though we have provided them with list after list...yet, I know that when those projects are automated, they're not going to think to dig back through email or through a file for the special computers.
Today, I had to struggle to find one of those lists, to help me with an estimate I needed for a grant report. I knew before, but today it really hit home what a pain it was to look at each computer separately, and try to figure out which software would be where. I can't imagine trying to manage an IT department that is responsible for hundreds of computers, and with their unique users and software.
I've been thinking about how IT professionals track all the different machines and software at their organizations this week. Last week, one of the groups presented the idea of having a tag on each machine that held a record of its history, to help make the IT workers' jobs more efficient. We've talked about how more academic sites with a strong feeling of intellectual freedom and privacy rights might feel that Big Brother is trespassing on their space if IT were to dictate every computing detail. Yet, in a big corporation, everyone might be forced to have the same computer with the same set up, with very tight security to monitor it.
What is the best way to track all the different computers and the different set ups in a given organization? In our department, we have about 20 PCs for customer use. They all have special software that is not available on any other computers in the library system, and even those 20 are not all alike. Sometimes we feel frustrated in our office when IT re-images our computers, and we realize--too late--that some of the user information for some of the special programs has disappeared. We feel irritated that they can't keep the different computers straight, even though we have provided them with list after list...yet, I know that when those projects are automated, they're not going to think to dig back through email or through a file for the special computers.
Today, I had to struggle to find one of those lists, to help me with an estimate I needed for a grant report. I knew before, but today it really hit home what a pain it was to look at each computer separately, and try to figure out which software would be where. I can't imagine trying to manage an IT department that is responsible for hundreds of computers, and with their unique users and software.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
