I just don't understand this filing methodology
-
-
@SEMI-HYBRID code said:
back when i was born, people usually knew there were actual people who had to take the trash out, and sometimes they even did it at home themselves.
Some people aren't allowed to take out the trash themselves.
-
@boomzilla said:
Some people aren't allowed to take out the trash themselves.
Crazy article. It boggles the mind that this country has a space program.
I read a short article a while ago in a newspaper that placed dalits squarely in the light of a kind of utterly trampled lowest caste, worth less than slaves, barely fit to walk on the same dirt roads as the higer castes. They carry flimsy poop baskets on their heads. And then it starts to rain.
This article turns that on its head. At the risk of bringing up a cliche: apparently the issue is more complex than I thought.
-
@dhromed said:
It boggles the mind that this country has a space program.
Yes, although I'm reminded of something I once read about the demographics and economics of China. Basically, that China has a population very similar to the US (~300M) plus a billion peasants. Given the massive population in India, I suspect there's some of that going on there, too.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Severity One said:
Arguably, it is, but it's a bit like saying that a car should prevent you from crashing into a wall.One consequence is that, with the web applications we write, users have the tendency to double-click on a 'Submit' button – not very nice if that means that a transaction will be processed twice.
This is bad design. Transactions shouldn't be able to be applied twice, or the second save should be idempodent. You can also use client-side scripting to disable the submit button, but I wouldn't rely on that to guarantee uniqueness.
As a developer, you don't really think about the possibility that a user might double-click on a button. That HTTP is a stateless protocol doesn't help either. The word 'transaction' is used loosely here, BTW.
-
@Severity One said:
As a developer, you don't really think about the possibility that a user might double-click on a button.
Then you don't work with users much. Just disable the button when it's clicked.
-
@Cassidy said:
@Speakerphone Dude said:
therefore deleting emails to "train" people is basically sabotage.
But it isn't "deleting emails to train people", it's technology following what these people have asked it to do (trash emails) versus preventing technology following its intended purpose because people are using it wrongly (treating a trashcan as a storage location for important data).
This is like saying: I did not give money to the prostitute, I put the money on the table and she took it - in which case you would be reminded that there is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, then you would be sent to jail. The fact is that you know that users are storing emails in the Deleted Items, so enforcing a system that empties that folder means that you know you are deleting emails. It does no matter how you hide behind words, this qualifies as sabotage.
-
@Severity One said:
Arguably, it is, but it's a bit like saying that a car should prevent you from crashing into a wall.
I think it's more like anti-lock brakes; a minor control error shouldn't end your life.
@Severity One said:
As a developer, you don't really think about the possibility that a user might double-click on a button.
Really? I certainly do. I think even Facebook keeps you from submitting stuff twice; it's a pretty standard part of web design and has been for several years. I've double-clicked buttons and links before, not because I don't know any better, but because I twitched and pressed twice or I pressed too lightly the first time and then re-pressed only to find that my first press registered.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Severity One said:
Arguably, it is, but it's a bit like saying that a car should prevent you from crashing into a wall.
I think it's more like anti-lock brakes; a minor control error shouldn't end your life.
@Severity One said:
As a developer, you don't really think about the possibility that a user might double-click on a button.
Really? I certainly do. I think even Facebook keeps you from submitting stuff twice; it's a pretty standard part of web design and has been for several years. I've double-clicked buttons and links before, not because I don't know any better, but because I twitched and pressed twice or I pressed too lightly the first time and then re-pressed only to find that my first press registered.
Or, more likely, the page is taking so long to show any kind of progress, so I click the button again and whoops! It actually was totally doing whatever and now I'm staring at a page saying that it's already doing whatever, stop being so naughty you stupid user.
-
@pkmnfrk said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Severity One said:
Arguably, it is, but it's a bit like saying that a car should prevent you from crashing into a wall.
I think it's more like anti-lock brakes; a minor control error shouldn't end your life.
@Severity One said:
As a developer, you don't really think about the possibility that a user might double-click on a button.
Really? I certainly do. I think even Facebook keeps you from submitting stuff twice; it's a pretty standard part of web design and has been for several years. I've double-clicked buttons and links before, not because I don't know any better, but because I twitched and pressed twice or I pressed too lightly the first time and then re-pressed only to find that my first press registered.
Or, more likely, the page is taking so long to show any kind of progress, so I click the button again and whoops! It actually was totally doing whatever and now I'm staring at a page saying that it's already doing whatever, stop being so naughty you stupid user.
Yeah, that too. I guess I'm so used to building Ajax apps that have reasonable user feedback that I forgot about that.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
That's an abysmal way to raise awareness. For whatever reason, the emails aren't being deleted regularly and you are deliberately intervening and destroying company property.
I am... or he is?
I understand that there's an awareness/training issue (or rather, lack of) that could clear up this confusion, but I don't know of anyone seriously working in a business position that equates "I want to delete this item" to actually mean "I need to archive it"[1]. You can't honestly tell me that mistaking the folder icon to denote something of lowest importance for a place to store something of high importance isn't a WTF.
Also.. I'm not sure about your systems, but our trashcans - both physical and virtual - are regularly purged.
@morbiuswilters said:
The user has made his intent clear: he doesn't want the emails deleted. He's going about ensuring that incorrectly, but he clearly doesn't mean for them to be deleted.
Then why is he storing them in a folder that looks like a waste paper bin, labelled "deleted items"..? And how do we distinguish between people that intend to delete items from those that use their recycle bin as an important storage location? Do we disable auto-purging company-wide because there's a possibility that an individual is storing something important in their trashcan?
[1] well, I do now - I've met a couple and the OP highlighted one.
-
@Severity One said:
You're now presuming that all users know (and can be bothered) that you can create sub-folders. And that they can be bothered to drag e-mails to a diferent folder.
Or more like I'm presuming that part of an organisational orienteering process (induction training) guides them to best practise within the company, where they are shown:
- what they can do (creating separate mailbox folders)
- why they could/should do it (benefits of organising their storage)
- what people currently do (what folders already exist, and why)
- what they should not do (lack of organisation, going over quota, etc) and why
Basically I see all of this stuff as ways of making the employee more productive in what they do, and on the majority case most people are receptive to such training/demonstrations. It's situations where they don't know this stuff, never bothered to find out, or have made some concerted effort to avoid it and then find that loss/mislaying of important company data results from their actions.
Most cases it's not a deliberate action and it can be recovered; on occasions stubborn ignorance quickly becomes a blamestorming approach yet the finger still points at IT.
- what they can do (creating separate mailbox folders)
-
@Speakerphone Dude said:
The fact is that you know that users are storing emails in the Deleted Items, so enforcing a system that empties that folder means that you know you are deleting emails. It does no matter how you hide behind words, this qualifies as sabotage.
But I don't know users are storing emails in the Deleted Items, I know that the deleted items folder gets auto-purged so I (and others in this organisation) know not to store them there. It looks and behaves like a trashcan. Important stuff is stored elsewhere, archived and catalogued.
It's always been the way in my company (and two others before it). I can't see how the configuration of our systems working as intended is described as "sabotage".
-
@Cassidy said:
It's always been the way in my company (and two others before it). I can't see how the configuration of our systems working as intended is described as "sabotage".
Good lord. No one fucking cares about your company. At the companies in question, it hasn't always been this way, otherwise it wouldn't be happening. So to make that change now would be effectively sabotage. Your parochialism is approaching blakeyrat levels here. Stop it.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Cassidy said:
It's always been the way in my company (and two others before it). I can't see how the configuration of our systems working as intended is described as "sabotage".
Good lord. No one fucking cares about your company. At the companies in question, it hasn't always been this way, otherwise it wouldn't be happening. So to make that change now would be effectively sabotage. Your parochialism is approaching blakeyrat levels here. Stop it.
Hey I resent that. I think Cassidy's a dumbshit too. On virtually every topic he ever posts about here.
-
@Cassidy said:
"I want to delete this
item" to actually mean "I need to archive it"[1]. You can't honestly tell me that mistaking the folder icon to denote something of lowest importance for a place to store something of high importance isn't a WTF.I didn't say it was sensible, I said that your user-hostile attitude is unacceptable.
@Cassidy said:
Also.. I'm not sure about your systems, but our trashcans - both physical and virtual - are regularly purged.
Gmail purges trash older than 30 days, which is far too long in my opinion. Automatic purging should happen (probably after 24 hours) but it wasn't in this case. How often your mail is purged is irrelevant because the user's wasn't and your suggestion to finding he was storing important documents there was to "delete 'em all and let God sort 'em out".
@Cassidy said:
Then why is he storing them in a folder that looks like a waste paper bin, labelled "deleted items"..?
We've been over this; it's a training issue, possibly exacerbated by something like a strict quota on his inbox and no quota on his trash and lack of auto purge.
@Cassidy said:
And how do we distinguish between people that intend to delete items from those that use their recycle bin as an important storage location? Do we disable auto-purging company-wide because there's a possibility that an individual is storing something important in their trashcan?
Stop acting retarded. You know damn well nobody is saying we should encourage people to store documents in the trash. I've basically said two things: 1) if it's happening, it's probably due to some problem in your IT ecosystem such as restrictive inbox quotas or insufficient training; and 2) "solving" the problem by deleting everything so the user learns is akin to sabotage.
