[Tfug] Technical harassment, or "Computer knowledge is more important than anything else in the world."

[Bexley Hall]

--- Chris Niswander <cn.tfug.account at bitboost.com>
wrote:

> At 06:54 PM 2/27/2006 -0800, you wrote:
> >
> >--- Christopher Robbins <robbinsc at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Technically, they had to navigate the site to
> >> subscribe to the list....In
> >> theory, shouldn't one be able to navigate to the
> >> same place they subscribed
> >> to the list to UNsubscribe from the list?
> >
> >Agreed.  Put a filter on the list to reject
> messages
> >with "unsubscribe" in the sbject/body.  When a
> person
> >keeps getting mail from the list and his/her
> >unsubscribe pleas are unanswered, he/she will
> >*eventually* get motivated to solve his/her own
> >problem!
> 
> I always love it when some computer-illiterate
> person
> has no idea how to resolve some problem, and they
> get constructive reactions like this.

How do you know they are "computer illiterate"?
They *were* "literate enough" to figure out how
to get *on* the list.  They *were* sent a "welcome"
message that described the list and how it
worked (including how to unsubscribe).

>From watching a lot of lists, I've noticed that
this is a common practice by a certain portion of
the "subscriber base" -- they expect the "list"
to magically do what they want.  Realizing that
the "list" is some group of people (and hopefully
one of those people will do what they want done!)

The more technical the list, the fewer these types
of request (in my experience).  Perhaps the bar is
high enough that people don't casually join unless
they feel confident (do not have to feel *competent*)
with the expectations of them.

> Wouldn't we do better to design systems that help
> people
> who don't know much about computers to solve their
> problems anyway?

Sure.  But those systems aren't easy to design.
My lists just hunt for "unsubscribe" -- since that
seems to be a common approach (and how my list
instructions *tell* subscribers to manage their
subscription). Trying to determine "intent"
is difficult.  Who is your audience?  What skill
level are they operating at?  What are their
expectations of this "thing"?  etc.

I've spent days arguing about telephone vs.
calculator layout of buttons on a keypad.  Some
audiences tend towards one arrangement more than
the other.  Or, trying to decide just how "stiff"
a button should be (an office worker has a limp
touch; a fighter pilot can crush *tin* - not
aluminum -- cans between his forefingers; fishermen
seem to have 10 pound sledge hammers on each finger!).

And, if someone NOT in the expected audience
comes along, whatever scheme you design runs
a good chance of failing (what if someone has
a poor grasp of written English?  or spells
poorly??)  There's a point at which you can't
hand-hold (economically) any further -- especially
in light of the fact that these folks went *looking*
for "how to subscribe" (yet were not motivated
enough to look for "how to unsubscribe"?)

> For example, if someone sends 'please take me off
> your mailing list'
> type emails, a rudimentary heuristic scoring system
> should recognize
> them and send the person emails saying that to stay
> on the mailing list,
> the person will have to do something (send back a
> specific type of reply?
> check a web form? something like that) or the person
> will be removed.
> 
> There are millions of people with better things to
> do than to learn to really understand computers.

Sure.  But are they likely to be reading *this*
list?

> The ideal would presumably be something like the OS
> X Mac but *more* so:
> a top layer friendly to novices, with progressively
> more sophistication 
> underneath, until somewhere under BSD you finally
> reach a layer that includes
> microscopic soldering irons, logic probes, and
> nanomanipulators 
> so you can modify your chips if you want to. :-)
> 
> Or alternatively, 95% of the population could just
> keep using Windows forever. :-)
> 
> I do almost admire the resourcefulness some users
> show in
> getting themselves into problems that they don't
> understand.
> Not that any of *us* have ever been there. ;-)
> 
> Hm...now I will have to decide if *I* always have
> something better to do
> than to write up a patch for Mailman to address this
> problem...

*That* is the problem.  And, if you resolve this 
issue, there will be another.  You have to decide
what your "minimum proficiency" will be.  Efforts
beyond that are often wasted.  Consider the types
of behavior/responsibility that you want to encourage
and reward...

Slot machines are designed so that it is *very*
easy for the user to "Max Bet" -- no need to put
in 5 coins; no need to press a "bet 1 coin" button
5 times; goal (of the machine's owner/operator)
is to get you to bet a lot and quickly!  (6 seconds
per pull).  You'll also notice that a slot
machine doesn't *dispense* coins, by default
(that slows down game play).  I.e. the user has
to go looking for "a button" to get *their*
money out of the machine -- since that is a
secondary "requirement" in the eyes of the
operators  :>

> Or I can just sit back and imagine a *Linux/BSD
> version* of the Apple 
> "Think different" ads, with Gandhi, Einstein,
> Earhart, etc. being harangued 
> about how instead of wasting their time on politics,
> theoretical physics, 
> airplanes, etc., they should be learning more about
> computers!

Computers should be unobtrusive -- except when
they *shouldn't* be!  :>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com