With a kickoff paragraph like this, you can only guess where the article is going...
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 >