ie8 fix

Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

Self-evident computing: What does it mean for the future?

By | October 4, 2010, 3:30am PDT

Summary: We have started to witness the triumph of the self-evident user experience. See what it will mean for the future of the tech industry and IT jobs.

I recently challenged a product person at Google, asking if a certain option — toggling on or off Gmail’s threaded conversation view — would be possible on a thread by thread basis. The Googler responded that it was certainly possible but that they wouldn’t do it. Why? Because it would introduce complexity and confusion for users.

I smiled and said, “I’m really glad you guys think that way, even if the product doesn’t let me do exactly what I want.”

Why would I say that, and why is this significant?

Because, it’s the exact opposite approach of the old way of building products in the technology industry, and it’s a symbol of the new formula of discipline that is powering today’s best tech products. Over the next decade this principle is going to change the balance of power in the tech industry and have a major impact on the job roles in the tech workforce.

The old model

Let’s pick on Microsoft Word as an example of the old way. Although it is far from alone in this phenomenon, it is one of the most popular software applications of all time. The product started out great. It was one of the first word processors to offer WYSIWYG and introduce a toolbar. It quickly conquered text-based Word Perfect by the mid-1990s.

But, then lots of different Windows and Mac users told Microsoft all of the things they wished the product could do or ways that they wished it would work and Microsoft took the best suggestions and kept adding on more and more features and options to the point that today’s Word is so bloated, over-complicated, and bogged down with options that it’s often difficult to figure out how to do basic tasks. In fact, it often requires a bunch of documentation and training to figure out how to use it.

This pattern has played itself out thousands of times with products as large as ERP suites and Microsoft Office and as small as the line-of-business apps that power niche industries within government and health care, for example. It evens plays itself out in hardware (although software continues to become increasingly more important than hardware). Think of the laptops and desktops with lots of redundant ports and tons of confusing buttons and unused function keys.

All of these traditional tech products were the result of an industry racing to catch up with the relentless demand for computer technology. We had a phrase for this when we first started TechRepublic. We used to say, “We’re building the plane while we were flying it.”

The problem with that approach is that it typically allows inefficiencies to creep into the process and less thought is dedicated up front to the overall design and architecture of the product. In other words, it fosters a lack of discipline.

A self-evident user experience

The new way of building tech products is about less rather than more. It’s about removing (or never implementing) rarely-used features rather than piling on as many as you can cram into a product. It’s about not being hyper-reactive to a handful of user requests that may not reflect the larger user base. Most of all, it’s about discipline — the discipline to stick to a product’s core functionality and avoid the temptation of product creep.

The end game of this disciplined approach is building products that have a user experience (UX) that is almost completely self-evident. That’s why products with stripped-down GUIs and feature sets like the iPad, Android, Gmail, and Salesforce.com have become meteoric success stories.

A user doesn’t need to approach any of those products with a user manual in hand or a half-day training course under his belt. The user experience is self-evident.

And, once people start experiencing these types of self-evident user experiences, it changes their expectations for the other systems they work with. They start wanting and expecting tech products that just work and that don’t require a manual or help from an IT expert to set up and use.

For product builders, the tough part of instituting this kind of discipline is that you have to get comfortable saying “No” a lot. There are tons of ideas, features, and options that sound good when you’re building a product but you have to create a process that weeds out the unnecessary and is continually in a state of brutally paring down to only the absolute core functionality.

Many of the incumbent tech companies do not have the culture, talent, or processes in place to do that. Plus, many are saddled with backward compatibility issues that keep them from making bold moves into the future. Nokia and BlackBerry are excellent examples. Both are under attack from newer systems that are far more self-evident (iPhone and Android) but have a large installed base that they don’t want to alienate by iterating too quickly. In both cases, they’ve ended with over-complicated products that suffer from many of the same maladies as Microsoft Word.

It’s tempting to think that only startups or new products from big companies can achieve this kind of discipline to produce self-evident products. However, even Microsoft is showing signs that its “gets it” on this topic. Look at the Bing search engine and the Windows Phone 7 platform and you can see that the company had the guts to blow up the previous products and start over from scratch with a far simpler and more self-evident product. Of course, what they do with their two core products, Windows and Office, will likely be a different story but at least a couple of their product groups are making the right moves.

Some of you will take this idea of self-evident UX to mean that the tech products are going to be dumbed down and become less sophisticated. That will be an easy criticism to make since many successful products won’t pile on as many features and will be more discriminating about the ones they do include. But, as Leonardo da Vinci said, “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”

What it means for tech workers

The move toward a self-evident user experience is going to have several natural consequences for the technology professionals who work with these products on a daily basis. In many ways, these IT pros have benefited from the overly complex and sometimes convoluted technology products because they were the ones who helped sort everything out for the users. That won’t be the case for much longer.

There will be fewer jobs for IT pros who focus primarily on assisting users to learn and troubleshoot new and existing technologies. A lot of the IT jobs will shift toward project management (selecting the right products), programming (building next generation software), and the data center (working in the NOCs of large service providers).

This change isn’t going to happen all at once next week or next month, or even next year. It’s a process. It’s already happening in many places, but it’s something that is going to gradually unfold over a decade. Some places will hit a tipping point before others, but if you’re a traditional IT professional you need to be aware of this changing dynamic and changing set of user expectations, because these are the factors that will fuel many of the changes in the tech industry in the years ahead.

This article was originally published on TechRepublic.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Jason Hiner is the Editor in Chief of TechRepublic. He writes about the products, people, and ideas that are revolutionizing business with technology.

Disclosure

Jason Hiner

Jason Hiner has nothing to disclose. He doesn't hold investments in the technology companies he covers.

Biography

Jason Hiner

Jason Hiner is the Editor in Chief of TechRepublic, an online trade publication and peer-to-peer community for IT leaders. He is an award-winning journalist who examines the latest trends and asks the big questions about the technology industry. He previously worked as an IT manager in the health care industry.

You can also find him on Twitter, , Facebook, and at JasonHiner.com.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
47
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: The new reality: Technology must be self-evident
tomlin21-24319035676893835085146735905770 11th Oct
That may be an ideal,prevalent sensation submitting.In particular useful to 1 who's just monitoring down the resouces reebok jersey about this factor.It really is gonna evidently guidance teach me.
At first I was like "huh", then I was like "hmm?" ... then I wondered when articles and blog posts would become self evident to save me time.
@Whodaht It is not about saving you time. It is about getting more page views.
0 Votes
+ -
@pwatson & Whodaht

No - this article is self evident - you read the words and get the meaning - or at least could get the meaning.

You do not need a manual on how to understand this article, or at least I believe many readers do not need a manual to understand this article.

Self evident means it in itself is explanatory - not the same things as you will know it before it exists and you see it.

Since self evident is a phrase in your constitution isn't it about time you understood what it means?
@richardw66
In this day, it can mean whatever the writer wants it mean. Just like cloud computing. And no need to be jealous of my constitution, you can have one too when you get older.
0 Votes
+ -
@Whodaht this is what evident to me http://ow.ly/2zqA9
Less is seldom, if ever, more. Products should not have fewer features, they should just be more easily discoverable and usable.
0 Votes
+ -
More is LESS
fred@... 4th Oct 2010
@shollomon
Products should not have additional features when they will only be used by a small (less than single digit percentage) population. Keep It Simple and let those that want added complexity achieve that with plug-ins. Those added "features" only bloat the installed base.
0 Votes
+ -
that must not be important to the more is less audience.
0 Votes
+ -
@shollomon

Which leads to the question of what features are the right ones? Or do you believe that every possible feature should be in every product? Should Word estimate your chance of a heart attack based on your typing pattern?

Or would that be so useless that it does not count?

And which menu should it be on? Or which toolbar? And how many toolbars should the user need to have open to find all of the options?

The best way to make something more easily discoverable is not to bury it amongst piles of mostly useless stuff.
0 Votes
+ -
This article has some good advice, such as application self-discovery, but some applications have a lot of features because they are required. Exactly which feature(s) of Office would you remove? Maybe you don't use it, but a lot of others might.

Yes, simple is nice, but sometimes simple just means impractical.
0 Votes
+ -
@batpox

Most users of Word use probably about 20 toolbar features - font, face, size, alignment etc. save, print, new and not much else.

And of the many hundreds of other features - they just get in the way of almost every user.

I would remove most of the features of Word - because in fact I know many people who get driven crazy by Word trying to be clever and failing. If MS just made key features work well and dropped the rest the world would be a better place for many, many users.

Since they haven't I am now quite happily using Pages, which works better and produces better looking documents quicker, mainly because it does not fight me, it assists me.
0 Votes
+ -
Painting Your Bias and Types of Tools
Rob Oakes 4th Oct 2010
I agree with Shollomon. Less is not more. Usually, it's just less. Moreover, you've selected a handful of tools that can get away with a very narrow approach and contrasted them with tools that cannot.

Salesforce.com and GMail do very, very simple things. One is a sales and contact manager, the other is an email program. You then contrast these against programs that need to do lots and lots of things, like Microsoft Word. And then you say that Microsoft Word needs to simplify its feature set because it is to confusing and alienating.

Tell me, where is the Word processor or document writing system that is currently challenging the hegemony of Word? Who is advocating that we drop Word in favor of simpler tools? Where is the elegant software that accomplishes everything we "need" and nothing we don't? Google Docs, OpenOffice (which is just as complicated as Word, if not more so), LaTeX or a LaTeX front-end like LyX (my own personal choice)?

I'm sorry, but it doesn't exist. Microsoft Word enjoys dominance because it is the most capable Word processor for most people. Full stop. All of the other products taken *together* probably don't even amount to more than 5% of Word's user base. As much as we (or I) might like them to.

Or, please show me the army of stupid that struggle to do simple things in Word? Yes, people often struggle to do hard things (mail merge, query databases, build interactive forms, etc). But the simple things are simple. You open it up and start typing. The basic features are self-evident and available. The UI is clear. (So much so, in fact, that Google and Pages copied the toolbar layout.) With the ribbon, the presence and use of styles is even encouraged. There is no significant learning curve. I'm not sure that there is a learning curve at all for basic tasks.

And this fails to consider highly sophisticated programs which need to remain highly sophisticated. Where is the serious contender to Photoshop? Maybe you can point me at a few consumer level photo tools that are meeting the needs of mom and dad, but there is no "simple" piece of software that is threatening Adobe's flagship product. And all of the alternatives are just as complicated.

Nor, for that matter, is any real art being created on the iPad. Yes, there are exhibition pieces. But these are akin to a symphony played on a collection of iPhones. They are novelties, and interesting for that reason. iPad is simply not the equal of computer + Wacom. It's much harder to create something of quality, and until that improves, it will never replace more serious tools.

In the end, I think you've done something that I've heard called, "Paint your bias." You've gone to a small handful of examples (even though they're interesting) and decided that they represent the whole world. I'm sorry, but they don't.

iPad is an interesting machine, and Salesforce.com is tremendously cool. But they both serve niche markets.

iPad is a companion device. By definition, it requires another machine and I've never met anyone who has let it replace their main computer wholesale. In most instances, it's used for consumption: reading, email, websurfing. These are major activities for most users, but they are also *very* simple tasks. In contrast, Salesforce.com serves a very narrow niche. And even there, it has hardly replaced Outlook. Rather, it complements it, a case of "More is more."

While I agree with the tagline, "Technology must be self-evident", I disagree with your prescription on how to get there. Rather than aim for simplicity, tech needs to aim for elegance. We use Maxwell's equations because they elegantly summarize many phenomenon, not because they are simple. Ditto for good software. If the features are present and elegantly incorporated into the UI, they will be discoverable. And that brings value to a product.

Which is why people stay with Word and MS Office. Yes, they could switch to "simpler" alternatives, but in many cases those options are the bad "simple". They're crippled.
@Rob Oakes
Very well put!
0 Votes
+ -
@Rob Oakes

Word dominates because it is believed to be the best due to it's feature bloat.

The purpose of the feature bloat was to win the feature count war. Now they have won it is impossible to compete without someone pointing out that word has feature X which product Y does not have - so Product Y is inferior.

As I have stated above, I am a recent convert to Pages, it is working well for me. I use it to fix up Word documents for other people.

And like many good products before it - it is not big in the market place, but then this has always been the way of commerce, the top end of quality is not the same as the largest market share.

Before Word I used to use a product that has now become Nisus Writer. I have not used it for many years, but it was way superior to Word when I used to use it.

The productivity rate with both of these products is much higher than Word - the feature count and market share are much lower.

Compare the market share of Mercedes to Ford and tell me that market share is a measure of quality!!!

And explain to me how the many, many 'features' of word could actually make my word processing more productive than Pages!
0 Votes
+ -
Ironically, the trade press has had a lot to do with creating the problem. You praise the early Microsoft Word implementations, but many of us remember that the really early ones were terrible since they were far from easy to use.

What drove the sales of Word at that time, were all the articles in the trade press commenting about how there were so many more features in Word than the competitiors. When readers pointed out that they were unusable features due to the complexity of the interface, the press labeled the critics as morons, even though if you caught the reviewer in person they had no clue how to use the feature they praised.

Your points are mainly valid, but the trade press including Ziff-Davis need to look in the mirror to find the blame.
"New formula of discipline"? Well, if you mean discipline in a Ministry of Truth way. How can you actually admire Google for its Big Brother-ish "we know best and all you peons can go bite it" attitude? Are the rest of us to be denied a given feature just because you have no need for it? And for your information, no technology is "self evident." Nobody is born knowing this stuff. What you think is "self evident" is just what you've done before and are comfortable with. Any technology that's "self evident" is old technology. Also FYI, Word's problem is not that it's too complex; it's that Microsoft made the wrong choices about the default interface. Sure, nobody needs all the features of Word, but nobody is forced to deal with them if they don't need to. Yes, the average Word user would be better off with WordPad or even Notepad, but those are hardly "self evident" either.
0 Votes
+ -
@Vesicant

Try discipline in the sense of being able to resist the urge to put in a feature because we can, when it will not benefit the user, and will probably distract from the real use of the product.

Don't try stupid 'Ministry of Truth' spin on this, this is about the user - not about the designer - that's the point!!!
@richardw66 Hit a nerve, did I? The issue is not whether features are left in or out. The issue is, who decides -- the customer, or an arrogant know-it-all Big Brother.
0 Votes
+ -
Arthur C. Clarke's observation that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" has a clear corollary: "Any technology that's not magical isn't sufficiently advanced".

What users are looking for is that magical experience of being able to do something powerful in a simple, low effort way. If they have to pay attention to the sprockets & gears that make it work, then it's not magical. They can still make it work, but they rightfully feel it's insufficiently advanced, and move to another product that is.
0 Votes
+ -
Hmmm....
richard.gardner@... 4th Oct 2010
Yeah, ERP systems should have fewer features. Do you even know what an ERP system DOES? No, because you're a journo. Most ERP systems have to capture real world events, you can only create simplicity when you are creating the idiom for the user from scratch, as soon as the real world encroaches you have to create exceptions to deal with what are essentially chaotic events.
0 Votes
+ -
If new technology must be self-evident, we would still be living in caves.
0 Votes
+ -
Caves...
dragosani 4th Oct 2010
@mike_buckley@...

If the technology had been self-evident it wouldn't have taken us so long to get out of those caves.

The article is definitely right about one thing. Needless complexity slows down progress. Keeping the interface usable and self-evident dramatically increases adoption because people have more important things to do then to study yet another manual on how to use yet another piece of software. Software should always work for us and not us working for the software.
0 Votes
+ -
@dragosani

Or to put it another way - if you gave a caveman a smartphone he would not be empowered.

If you gave a caveman a torch he would be empowered.

If you gave one caveman a phone with a single call/hangup button and gave the next caveman the same, and that button placed a call to the other caveman's phone. The buttons should have a picture of the other caveman on them. Now there is a good chance the caveman will work out how to make that do something!!!

Alternatively give them each a phone with 4 buttons labelled with handset symbols and up/down arrows to select from a phone list that already contains the other phone's number - and again they would get nowhere.

Self evident is empowering. Feature bloat is marketing hype.
0 Votes
+ -
@dragosani
0 Votes
+ -
@dragosani

OK, I studied physics at Harvard (did not like the place) and ended up with a masters in economics. Please think about what you said. It feels id10t like.
0 Votes
+ -
Sometimes complexity is needed
pwatson 4th Oct 2010
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."

-Albert Einstein

The problem is that vendors have not made it easy enough to use their product.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The new reality: Technology must be self-evident
pk de cville Updated - 4th Oct 2010
Just wondering.

How did you write this article without mentioning Apple even once?

; )
0 Votes
+ -
It does what you expect it to
clathwell 4th Oct 2010
This is a quote about good design, used quite often by Fred Brooks, and attributed to Kenneth E. Iverson who very well may have taught the first "Automatic Data Processing" (AKA Computer Science) course at Harvard in he 1950's.

Rock on!
0 Votes
+ -
I've been using computers since 1963 and helping others use computers in a university environment since 1967. This includes learning to toggle in a loader in binary to load the bootstrap loader on papertape to load the whatever, also on papertape. And there wasn't much whatever to load unless you wrote it yourself. Boy were we happy when DECtapes came along...

Anyway, somewhere along the line I came to believe that if you needed a manual to figure out how to get a program to do something basic, then the program was, shall we say, "not very well designed", aka, had a lousy user interface.

On the other hand, if you don't know how to get a program to do something, but you take your best guess and it works, then the program has a GOOD user interface.

Knock on wood that "self-evidence" will become the "wave of the present".
0 Votes
+ -
Disabled by default, not GONE.
tkejlboom 4th Oct 2010
Rather than take all those bits out of Office, they should turn them off, and put a big easy to find shiny glowing button that when the user chooses, takes them to a wizard to optimize the app for that person.
0 Votes
+ -
@tkejlboom

This is also a good idea - and probably the only option for MS to get out of the mess they have created without looking stupid.

Unfortunately what they did in Office 2007 was to do the opposite, they took the most commonly used menu functions and buried them in one menu to hide the mess away from the user. So they hid the useful stuff and left the less useful stuff.

They applied the stupidity of the Windows Start Menu to Office. An interface where to stop you start is just insane, not self evident!

The net result was loud screams of torture from the Office users around me who had upgraded.

So MS - you listening? - make the necessary functions directly accessible - and turn off the features that only exist for marketing reasons.
0 Votes
+ -
Maybe it's been mentioned elsewhere -- if so, I didn't see it when scanning through -- but are you aware that Google announced, just a few days ago, that they will make available a non-threaded email view in Gmail? The update notice also mentioned that it will be available in Google Apps.

I like the threaded view a lot. It makes sense to me and is a better view for my own purposes. But a large proportion of our soon-to-be-former Outlook adherents have had trouble with it, and some of them have dug in their heels.

-- Jim Irving, Hornblower SF CA
0 Votes
+ -
@jirving@...

Where an alternative view can be provided simply it should!!!

Removing all features is not sensible either.
0 Votes
+ -
This would be a good trend...
spstanley 4th Oct 2010
I love the idea that products are trending toward self-evident functionality. If it's true, then that means I can develop products with just a few more useful features and win over market share....
0 Votes
+ -
@spstanley

As long as those extra features do not just get in the way - so if you can work out how to make them simple then yes - you can!!!

If you just pile on things and make the user's life harder then, no, maybe you'll just fail.

Try iPhone design - this whole exercise is happening now - it is all about necessary and simple design. Self evident is 100% important because no room for crap and explanation.

We are being helped enormously in our current product design by using the iPhone as the starting platform as it clarifies thinking to what really matters.
I agree in principle with the writer. Technology that does not have a self-evident value to the massses will disappear. Great quotes Da Vinci. It does require great sophistication to keep some thing important simple.
0 Votes
+ -
I will not get into a flame war. But there are three points to be made about Word:

1. The original interface made it difficult to find many needed features.
2. Many of the features caused instability or document corruption.
3. But, except for Note Bene, how many other word processors have the features needed by publishing industry professionals (editors, copyeditors, proofreaders) and scholars, educators, and students?

Lynn Kauppi, PhD
Codex Editorial Services
0 Votes
+ -
Until I read this, it didn't register that the evolution of features in products is often not evolutionary at all, but a kind of code-and-fix feature patching that creates ball-of-mud software for the user, not just the developer and maintainer.

Interesting.
"Self-evident" clearly has to be a moving target. It's an important target to aim at, though. Non-technical users really should be able to make use of software without intimidation.

It is the developer's job to make good software. This is an engineering task (even if the developer is not a "Software Engineer"). Engineering is the art of compromise, the art of getting the most appropriate balance between cost and functionality.

Cost increases and functionality decreases as unneeded features are added to an application - unneeded by a particular user, of course. Yet functionality also decreases if the blessed thing can't do what you want it to.

It seems to me that the increasingly popular "plug-in" model addresses this problem admirably. I'm an old UNIX guy, and have always appreciated the snap-together feel of the best of the standard UNIX utilities. With UNIX, you would learn what you needed, and not necessarily even know about the rest. Yet the unknown utilities did not shove themselves in your face constantly, as the horrible, bloated feature set of MS Word does.

Make a basic (and FLAWLESS) kernel or engine, have a convenient method of adding feature sets as they are needed, and let the user build his own "self-evident" application.

BTW, guys, it's NOT in the Constitution. It's in the Declaration of Independence.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The new reality: Technology must be self-evident
MistWingSilverTail-General@... 4th Oct 2010
Personally, I think it would be best if a product had just the basic, core features (ex: Word would have only the basic word processing features). In addition, add-ons would be available via downloads so that the user could customize the product as desired
0 Votes
+ -
I disagree... to some extent.
robbiethe1st 4th Oct 2010
I've used any number of programs, and if I find it missing some needed functionality, I'm going to replace it. Now, that isn't to say that every feature I need must be available from the main interface or page - It can be buried deep in a menu, available via CLI, or what-have-you, but not having a feature doesn't make it go away.

Personally, I think the best idea would be to design a nice, clean modular layout with commonly used tools setup by default... But allow people to customize - Allow the power-user to add what functionality he or she needs to the main interface, or provide an easily accessible command-line(or developer console, whatever you want to call it). This allows the light user to get what he or she needs, and the power users to get the job done.

But, I could be considered biased. I switched from Microsoft's best to Linux, and often pull up a terminal to do something because its simpler, faster, and quicker. It also allows for scripting of function sets.
Essentially, I'm just saying that making a simple, easy-to-use GUI doesn't -have- to eliminate functionality - you just have to add the functionality elsewhere.

As far as your Nokia vs. Android argument, Nokia may not be following this with their Symbian OS, yet they apparently have more people running Symbian than both Android and iOS combined, which isn't likely to change in the next couple of years(according to the Nokia World presentation report).
Personally, I dislike all three of the above OS's - I like my "old" Maemo5-based N900, with its terminal and full Linux base.
0 Votes
+ -
I think this is half right. The part about the core function. The way to also allow for other functions, while still keeping it simple, it to allow user added plug ins similar to Firefox.
0 Votes
+ -
Yea, that?s really a great idea. Let's strip everything out of the apps to make simple. That way...

It's easier for outsourced coders in foreign countries to understand and take over development efforts.
It?s easier for outsourced Help Desks from foreign countries to support.
It's smaller, so it's easier to put in the cloud.
It's less confusing, so its full functionality can be easily plagiarized and reproduced.

Come on Jason, this may be a trend but don?t confuse it with being a good idea. People today don?t have to spend a half day in MS Word training, WordPad is free (and the list just starts there). Those who don?t use, need or want to pay for seemingly unnecessary features don?t have to. Don?t sell this as companies are doing us a favor. It?s cheaper, bottom line. America and Americans better stand up and pay attention to where things are going and what?s truly driving them.
1) Very well put.

2) Apple started out with discipline and attracted an appreciative following.

3) Unix started out with efficient programs, each doing a little, and doing it well. Easily constructed were scripts to connect the efficient programs to do more complicated things.

Boaz Rahat
0 Votes
+ -
Less isn't necessarily more
johnd126 15th Oct 2010
I started to use SimpleNote because the interface is clean and the features basic. But, I really would like a couple of extras (ability to put in a datestamp, folders). When I visit the forum I see that everyone agrees: they like the clean interface but want a couple of extras. Here's the kicker though: their couple of extras aren't the same as mine! Such are the problems facing software developers.

I think the answer is having a simple, elegant program and then adding the 5% of extra features you use as plug-ins. That way you can set it up exactly as you want without having to haul around the extra 95% of other features that you'll never touch.
0 Votes
+ -
the zdnet article posts a prediction of the lessening of need for IT professionals. :P funny, i've seen this from fellow it professionals and outsiders alike for 3 decades and from the beginning, i laughed and moved on. and so it continues...
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The new reality: Technology must be self-evident
tomlin21-24319035676893835085146735905770 11th Oct
That may be an ideal,prevalent sensation submitting.In particular useful to 1 who's just monitoring down the resouces reebok jersey about this factor.It really is gonna evidently guidance teach me.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix