[10433] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
featurism/upgradism
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Silverberg)
Mon Jul 22 20:09:21 1996
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 18:43:01 -0500 (CDT)
From: Michael Silverberg <michaels@salieri.informatics.sunysb.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU>
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Craig A Summerhill <craig@cni.org> wrote
>(BTW, Michael, there was an interesting article on the general theme of
>"creeping featurism" in software published in _Byte_ magazine a couple
>years ago. I might be able to find an exact cite if you can't find
>it with the phrase "creeping featurism". Personally, I think it should
>be required reading for *anybody* making purchasing decisions in
>libraries.)
I would really like to find this article but "creeping featurism" didn't
pull it up on the Byte site. If you can find the citation I would be
grateful.
The issue of bloating software with features is one the industry needs to
come to grips with, not least the journalism side. If you have a look at
any comparitive reveiw of software e.g. word processors, most of the points
get given for posssesing features so that there is a selective pressure on
the vendors toadd features. Thus the bloating of software so that Word
threatens to swallow every byte of ram and disk space you have and takes
five minutes to load. Most users don't use all of the features but you need
to "stay current" so you upgrade. But would you want to use word as a page
layout program for your newsletter? Probably not - better use Pagemaker or
some other purpose built program. Apple's opendoc concept is a possible
saviour - if Apple survives :-(.
For Mac users, I note that Nisus will become an opendoc container so you
can literaly build your word processor with the features YOU need.
The worst example of review pathology I know is the graphics program
Freehand. For years, editing text in a Freehand document involved a
separate text dialog box. The reviewers railed against it so that
eventually Freehand came with the ability to edit text directly on the
page. The follwing update brought back the text editing box and the review
I read said something along the lines of thank heavens the text editing box
is back! Now I can't swear that it was the same reviewer who castigated it
earlier and then rejoiced in its reprise, but it was definitely the same
magazine!
One thing professionals might do is to try and get to the journalists.
Force them to rate software on how good it feels - not how many checkmarks
it has on the list of every conceivable feature. Write nasty letters to
magazines who publish reviews in which the latter is the mode of judgement.
Discount reviews of programs the reviewer has not lived with - you know the
type: " I've been using wizzywrite for 25 years but now it's time to
evaluate competitors" followed by "wizzywrite" is the most powerful of the
programs on offer" - sure he's been using for 25 years and knows all its
tricks!
This is turning into a rant but the message is "power to the users" with
the professionals, such as librarians, leading the charge.
Michael
_____________________________________________________________________
Michael Silverberg, D.Phil michaels@salieri.informatics.sunysb.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: [516] 444 - 2347 [FAX: -3475]
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology :::::::::::::::::::::
Department of Medicine; Health Sciences Center :::::::::::::::::::::
SUNY at Stony Brook; Stony Brook, NY 11794-8161 :::::::::::::::::::::
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
