Tech
The Guardian UK: Survival of the unfittest
With a kickoff paragraph like this, youcan only guess where the article is going...Imagine aprogram used by 120 million people, of whom about 119m hate it. Sound unlikely?Yet that's the perception one garners in trying to discover whether LotusNotes, IBM's "groupware" application, is - as readers of Technologyblog suggested - the "world's worst application".Sowhat's wrong with this article? It seems that the Guardian'snormal code of ethics wasn'tupheld. See, the code of ethics talks about how anonymous pejorativequotes should only be rarely used, and must be approved by senior editors. Did the senior editors at the Guardian really approve quoting fromthe anonymously-published (and now full of advertising!) Lotus Notes Suckswebsite,and an anonymouslatecomer comment on a weblog?Ben Rose was interviewed for the article, in his role as founder of thenew UKLotus Notes User Group. AfterBen's interview with the reporter, he asked me to call Mr. Arthur. Idid, but apparently too late for his deadline. It's unfortunate thatMr. Arthur seems to have taken a few anonymous opinions as authoritative-- and not, for example, taken a look at more recent versions of the product(Mr. Arthur uses Notes R5 on a Mac). There are other problems with this article -- StoweBoyd trotsout his old saw about Notesbeing able to only collaborate with other Notes users. Stowe, I knowyou've visited this weblog -- you know it runs on Lotus Notes, and I'mcollaborating with thousands of unique visitors every day.I suggested to Mr. Arthur that he check out Michael Sampson's essay, WhoseFault Is It When Collaboration Software Sucks?since it addresses some of the perception issues that he wrote about. Perhapsthat will get some coverage in the follow-up. After all, the lasttwo sentences show precisely why the author could have done a bit moreresearch -- and find out that the nextversion of Notes is precisely"rip[ping] up the user interface." Link: TheGuardian UK: Survival of the unfittest>
With a kickoff paragraph like this, you
can only guess where the article is going...
Ben Rose was interviewed for the article, in his role as founder of the new UK Lotus Notes User Group. After Ben's interview with the reporter, he asked me to call Mr. Arthur. I did, but apparently too late for his deadline. It's unfortunate that Mr. Arthur seems to have taken a few anonymous opinions as authoritative -- and not, for example, taken a look at more recent versions of the product (Mr. Arthur uses Notes R5 on a Mac).
There are other problems with this article -- Stowe Boyd trots out his old saw about Notes being able to only collaborate with other Notes users. Stowe, I know you've visited this weblog -- you know it runs on Lotus Notes, and I'm collaborating with thousands of unique visitors every day.
I suggested to Mr. Arthur that he check out Michael Sampson's essay, Whose Fault Is It When Collaboration Software Sucks? since it addresses some of the perception issues that he wrote about. Perhaps that will get some coverage in the follow-up. After all, the last two sentences show precisely why the author could have done a bit more research -- and find out that the next version of Notes is precisely "rip[ping] up the user interface."
Link: The Guardian UK: Survival of the unfittest >
Imagine a program used by 120 million people, of whom about 119m hate it. Sound unlikely? Yet that's the perception one garners in trying to discover whether Lotus Notes, IBM's "groupware" application, is - as readers of Technology blog suggested - the "world's worst application".So what's wrong with this article? It seems that the Guardian's normal code of ethics wasn't upheld. See, the code of ethics talks about how anonymous pejorative quotes should only be rarely used, and must be approved by senior editors. Did the senior editors at the Guardian really approve quoting from the anonymously-published (and now full of advertising!) Lotus Notes Sucks website, and an anonymous latecomer comment on a weblog?
Ben Rose was interviewed for the article, in his role as founder of the new UK Lotus Notes User Group. After Ben's interview with the reporter, he asked me to call Mr. Arthur. I did, but apparently too late for his deadline. It's unfortunate that Mr. Arthur seems to have taken a few anonymous opinions as authoritative -- and not, for example, taken a look at more recent versions of the product (Mr. Arthur uses Notes R5 on a Mac).
There are other problems with this article -- Stowe Boyd trots out his old saw about Notes being able to only collaborate with other Notes users. Stowe, I know you've visited this weblog -- you know it runs on Lotus Notes, and I'm collaborating with thousands of unique visitors every day.
I suggested to Mr. Arthur that he check out Michael Sampson's essay, Whose Fault Is It When Collaboration Software Sucks? since it addresses some of the perception issues that he wrote about. Perhaps that will get some coverage in the follow-up. After all, the last two sentences show precisely why the author could have done a bit more research -- and find out that the next version of Notes is precisely "rip[ping] up the user interface."
Link: The Guardian UK: Survival of the unfittest >
Originally by Ed Brill from Ed Brill on February 8, 2006, 3:40pm