Lilfe in the slow (repair) lane.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 19:54:41 -0500, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

To verify that the fuel pump had really been the problem, I attached
clip leads to the fuel pump connector and applied 12VDC. Nothing. I
then applied power directly to the fuel pump motor. Nothing, which
means a bad pump moter. Unfortunately, I wasn't very careful about
where I pointed the pump outlet, and sprayed some gasoline on myself.

Ok, something is wrong with your assertion here, you stated that nothing
happen which indicates the original pump to be bad however, you also
claim to get fuel on you via a spray? This would indicate that it must
of work?

I am confused..

Sorry(tm). The problem was that I had an office full of people and
was in the middle of editing that paragraph when I hit "send". I got
the sentences in the wrong order. It should read:

To verify that the fuel pump had really been the problem, I
attached clip leads to the fuel pump connector and applied 12VDC.
Nothing, which means a bad pump motor. I then applied power
directly to the fuel pump motor. Unfortunately, I wasn't
very careful about where I pointed the pump outlet, and sprayed
some gasoline on myself.

P.S.
If this was a test to see if readers actually read other's material?
it worked.

Nope. Just my rushed and sloppy editing. I can edit other peoples
work, but not my own.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[hrhofann@sbcglobal.net]

On Mar 1, 1:32 am, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 19:39:11 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"

grizzledgee...@comcast.net> wrote:
"Jeff Liebermann"  wrote in message
news:ub50j8hklumj6m3e3hgrmbhmft12v60bpe@4ax.com...

...all that was wrong was that she hadn't turned on the power
on the printer, or as she put it, I had forgotten to tell her to turn
on the power, making this my fault.

I hope you charged her your full fee, and collected it.

Ladyfriend.  I'll be lucky if I can get a free dinner for my efforts
and then only if I confess that it was somehow my fault.

So, which is it?  Is computah hardware becoming more complicated,
or does exposure to computers cause the brain to turn into mush?

Ignoring the fact that people are not taught (from an early age) how to
analyze and solve problems,

Well, that's part of the problem.  In a parallel effort, a different
friend and one of his accomplices are currently trying to troubleshoot
a non-functional Mercedes ML320.  My guess is $200 in wasted money on
parts that were not defective so far.  The problem is that despite my
advice on approaching the troubleshooting in a logical and systematic
manner, they've been floundering around for several days without any
useful results.  I see similar logic errors everywhere I look.  I
recall from skool, that there was a time when it was considered more
important teaching students how to think, rather than cram them full
of factoids.  However, when they succeeded, and the student was able
to think independently, that was deemed some kind of aberration.  That
was my problem in early skool.

I think it's the former. I find that as products
become more complicated, I have less patience with fixing or configuring them.
Most configuration problems are due to bad design, or the failure to
anticipate how products will actually be used.

I'm not sure which is the real culprit.  Obviously, something went
wrong.  I have no objections to the current state of electronic
complexity.  What bothers me is the lack of consistency among user
interfaces and operating paradigms.  There are a few standards, such
as up is on, and down is off, and maybe red is bad, while green is
good, but even those are violated.  I installed a Logitech BlueGoof
iPad keyboard today and found a slide switch where red means power on,
and green means power off (which incidentally was not described in the
manual).  Huh?

Such problems do not include remembering to turn on the power.

Apple:  It just works (except when it doesn't).

Well, to be fair, it's an HP problem, not an Apple problem.  HP
correctly guessed that many such printers will end up in the bedroom,
where bright lights from the printer is not acceptable.  So, they made
the lights so dim.  Unless one was specifically looking for the pilot
light, it would appear to be off.  That's not a bad arrangement, but I
would not expect the typical customer to understand what is happening.
They probably thing, that if the iPad is "always on", why shouldn't
the printer be always on?

I can't claim to be all that perfect myself.  In the distant past, I
designed marine radios, and wrote some of the manuals.  I was rather
proud of the job I did on the first manual, until someone pointed out
that I forgot to explain how to turn it on and off.  Oops.

In the future, I expect things to become more and more complicated.  I
also see devices, like printers, engaging in a dialog with the user
and with other devices, to determine what the user wants to do. It
then negotiates the parameters and settings automatically between
devices.  Put the iPad and printer next to each other, yell "connect
me", and they will.  Send the printer some data, and it's a fair
assumption that one wants it to power on in preparation for printing.
Don't do anything for a few minutes, and it's a fair assumption that
the printer should power down.  AI (artificial intelligence) was the
big thing in the late 1970's, but where is it today?

Ok, I've had my rant.

--
Jeff Liebermann     je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 831-336-2558 FREE

i bought a Samsung monitor about 6 months ago. Instruction manual
showed a bunch of legends across the front bottom of the display.
When I got home, I tried pushing on the front next to and on top of
the legends. Nothing worked. The instruction book did not say how to
turn on that I could find. I accidently grabbed the display along the
bottom edge and it turned on. A little experimenting and I found that
the touch sensitive switches were along the bottom side under the
legends that were on the front. Nowhere that I could find did the
instructions say to touch the display on the underside of the display
to activate whatever function you were trying to activate.

 

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:55:56 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

I need a rant...

Is hardware becoming more complicated, users becoming more clueless,
or both.

I get a panic call from a customer announcing that her HP Envy ink jet
printer refuses to print from her iPad 1 via Airprint. She's
desperate to print her Groupon discount coupons (obviously a major
emergency). She had followed my previous instructions to power cycle
and reboot everything involved if something appears to be hung, but
without any success. I rush over, expecting a hardware or
configuration problem. Instead, all that was wrong was that she
hadn't turned on the power on the printer, or as she put it, I had
forgotten to tell her to turn on the power, making this my fault.

However, upon closer inspection, I noticed that the only different
between the HP Envy printer front panel in the power off condition,
and in the power on but standby condition, was one dim white LED lamp
which was very easy to miss. To insure that it's never seen, the
viewing angle is rather narrow. I didn't even notice this LED until
shoved my face into the printer trying to clear a printer jam. The
reason for the small dim LED is that many such printers end up in
bedrooms and it would do to have the printer light up the whole room
at night.

So, which is it? Is computah hardware becoming more complicated, or
does exposure to computers cause the brain to turn into mush?
Neither.

This effect has been covered in detail in 'The Marching Morons' by C.
M. Kornbluth. 60 years after it was published, the story is more
pertinent than ever. It's well worth reading.

The fact is that when my Grandfather learned to drive there were a
number of operations required to start a car. Put the transmission in
neutral. Set the throttle to fast idle. Retard the spark. Apply the
choke. Crank slowly until you hit the compression point, then give it
a strong pull (DON'T push the crank with the thumb over the handle).
Repeat if necessary. Failure to carry out these steps properly
resulted in a flooded engine, the engine not starting, or a even a
broken arm.

The electric starter, automatic choke, automatic transmission, and
computer control module have eliminated the need for such care.
Maintenence that has to be performed every 1000 miles is now performed
at 10,000 to 100,000 mile intervals.

A similar thing has happened with computers over the last 45 years.
In 1967 to run a program I had to enter the program steps on IBM cards
using a keypunch. Any mistakes and the program wouldn't run. There
were also idiocyncries of the language to be avoided. As the hardware
evolved, programs came on a half dozen (or more) floppy disks which we
had to load by hand. Configuring a printer could be a nightmare if
the appropriate driver wasn't included. Now the operating system is
preloaded, software (aps) is installed automagically, and any idiot
can use one without understanding anything about how the whole system
works

And I remember 20 years ago when I was performing telephone support
for OS/2, and some very nice lady called because she couldn't get her
new computer to print to her new printer. After some struggling, we
discovered the salesman had failed to sell her a printer cable.....

PlainBill

 

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 18:28:34 -0800 (PST), "hrhofann@sbcglobal.net"
<hrhofmann@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Mar 1, 1:32 am, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 19:39:11 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"

grizzledgee...@comcast.net> wrote:
"Jeff Liebermann"  wrote in message
news:ub50j8hklumj6m3e3hgrmbhmft12v60bpe@4ax.com...

...all that was wrong was that she hadn't turned on the power
on the printer, or as she put it, I had forgotten to tell her to turn
on the power, making this my fault.

I hope you charged her your full fee, and collected it.

Ladyfriend.  I'll be lucky if I can get a free dinner for my efforts
and then only if I confess that it was somehow my fault.

So, which is it?  Is computah hardware becoming more complicated,
or does exposure to computers cause the brain to turn into mush?

Ignoring the fact that people are not taught (from an early age) how to
analyze and solve problems,

Well, that's part of the problem.  In a parallel effort, a different
friend and one of his accomplices are currently trying to troubleshoot
a non-functional Mercedes ML320.  My guess is $200 in wasted money on
parts that were not defective so far.  The problem is that despite my
advice on approaching the troubleshooting in a logical and systematic
manner, they've been floundering around for several days without any
useful results.  I see similar logic errors everywhere I look.  I
recall from skool, that there was a time when it was considered more
important teaching students how to think, rather than cram them full
of factoids.  However, when they succeeded, and the student was able
to think independently, that was deemed some kind of aberration.  That
was my problem in early skool.

I think it's the former. I find that as products
become more complicated, I have less patience with fixing or configuring them.
Most configuration problems are due to bad design, or the failure to
anticipate how products will actually be used.

I'm not sure which is the real culprit.  Obviously, something went
wrong.  I have no objections to the current state of electronic
complexity.  What bothers me is the lack of consistency among user
interfaces and operating paradigms.  There are a few standards, such
as up is on, and down is off, and maybe red is bad, while green is
good, but even those are violated.  I installed a Logitech BlueGoof
iPad keyboard today and found a slide switch where red means power on,
and green means power off (which incidentally was not described in the
manual).  Huh?

Such problems do not include remembering to turn on the power.

Apple:  It just works (except when it doesn't).

Well, to be fair, it's an HP problem, not an Apple problem.  HP
correctly guessed that many such printers will end up in the bedroom,
where bright lights from the printer is not acceptable.  So, they made
the lights so dim.  Unless one was specifically looking for the pilot
light, it would appear to be off.  That's not a bad arrangement, but I
would not expect the typical customer to understand what is happening.
They probably thing, that if the iPad is "always on", why shouldn't
the printer be always on?

I can't claim to be all that perfect myself.  In the distant past, I
designed marine radios, and wrote some of the manuals.  I was rather
proud of the job I did on the first manual, until someone pointed out
that I forgot to explain how to turn it on and off.  Oops.

In the future, I expect things to become more and more complicated.  I
also see devices, like printers, engaging in a dialog with the user
and with other devices, to determine what the user wants to do. It
then negotiates the parameters and settings automatically between
devices.  Put the iPad and printer next to each other, yell "connect
me", and they will.  Send the printer some data, and it's a fair
assumption that one wants it to power on in preparation for printing.
Don't do anything for a few minutes, and it's a fair assumption that
the printer should power down.  AI (artificial intelligence) was the
big thing in the late 1970's, but where is it today?

Ok, I've had my rant.

--
Jeff Liebermann     je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 831-336-2558 FREE

i bought a Samsung monitor about 6 months ago. Instruction manual
showed a bunch of legends across the front bottom of the display.
When I got home, I tried pushing on the front next to and on top of
the legends. Nothing worked. The instruction book did not say how to
turn on that I could find. I accidently grabbed the display along the
bottom edge and it turned on. A little experimenting and I found that
the touch sensitive switches were along the bottom side under the
legends that were on the front. Nowhere that I could find did the
instructions say to touch the display on the underside of the display
to activate whatever function you were trying to activate.

One of the failures of many design engineers. I had similar problems
decades ago with test engineers writing test procedures assuming an
advanced knowledge of electronics. A previous lead tech would have
his best tech vet the test procedures before accepting them. I added
a further step - I had the newest tester try to follow the procedure.
Any step he did not understand had to be rewritten. It irritated the
test engineers, but ensured the procedure actually worked as written.

PlainBill

 

[Dave Platt]

In article <qql4j852vjrc2g954pb1q0ks3g82pko1es@4ax.com>,
<PlainBill@yawhoo.com> wrote:

One of the failures of many design engineers. I had similar problems
decades ago with test engineers writing test procedures assuming an
advanced knowledge of electronics. A previous lead tech would have
his best tech vet the test procedures before accepting them. I added
a further step - I had the newest tester try to follow the procedure.
Any step he did not understand had to be rewritten. It irritated the
test engineers, but ensured the procedure actually worked as written.

I've read of a similar test (possibly fictional) being applied to
officer candidates in OCS. They were given a task which needed to be
performed, and instructed to write up a set of orders to a platoon to
carry out the task. If the grunts in the platoon could find a
reasonably legitimate way to misinterpret the orders as-written, so
that the task wasn't accomplished properly, the officer candidate
flunked.

Seems like a good test for design engineers to have to follow... if
Joe or Jane Average-Newbie cannot follow your instructions, they need
to be rewritten.

--
Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 12:54:52 -0700, PlainBill@yawhoo.com wrote:

One of the failures of many design engineers.

I think you may mean the failures of many industrial design, human
factors, usability, and marketing. These days, the circuit design
engineers have little say in the how a product looks or works.

I had similar problems
decades ago with test engineers writing test procedures assuming an
advanced knowledge of electronics. A previous lead tech would have
his best tech vet the test procedures before accepting them. I added
a further step - I had the newest tester try to follow the procedure.
Any step he did not understand had to be rewritten. It irritated the
test engineers, but ensured the procedure actually worked as written.

Guilty as charged, but had a good excuse. Since I was the designer of
the product, having me write the test procedures guaranteed that I
would make some assumptions as to the operation of the product. When
I wrote procedures for my own products, they were universally
considered confusing and presumptive. Far too many missing steps. So,
I made a deal with one of the other engineers and we traded products.
It worked fairly well, and lower management accepted the idea. It
also provided an education on other products, as well as generated
many original ideas.

Then, upper management found out and announced its displeasure. I
don't recall their exact logic but it had something to providing a
single point of contact in engineering for the customers. When I
pointed out that this also creates a single point of failure, the
non-negotiable edict to cease the practice arrived in a memo.

I also had another problem. Some of the test techs were not the
brightest on the planet. A few were able to follow even the most
boring test procedure, repetitively, unerringly, and without protest.
This was great if the procedure worked, but if there were any changes,
the test techs would falter. They could tolerate boredom, but not
change. So, I grabbed anyone NOT involved in the actual testing of
the products, to help me debug the procedure. Just watching someone
inexperienced fumble through the procedure was often sufficient to
inspire massive reorganizations and rewrites.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[amdx]

On 3/2/2013 1:25 PM, PlainBill@yawhoo.com wrote:

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:55:56 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:

I need a rant...

Is hardware becoming more complicated, users becoming more clueless,
or both.

I get a panic call from a customer announcing that her HP Envy ink jet
printer refuses to print from her iPad 1 via Airprint. She's
desperate to print her Groupon discount coupons (obviously a major
emergency). She had followed my previous instructions to power cycle
and reboot everything involved if something appears to be hung, but
without any success. I rush over, expecting a hardware or
configuration problem. Instead, all that was wrong was that she
hadn't turned on the power on the printer, or as she put it, I had
forgotten to tell her to turn on the power, making this my fault.

However, upon closer inspection, I noticed that the only different
between the HP Envy printer front panel in the power off condition,
and in the power on but standby condition, was one dim white LED lamp
which was very easy to miss. To insure that it's never seen, the
viewing angle is rather narrow. I didn't even notice this LED until
shoved my face into the printer trying to clear a printer jam. The
reason for the small dim LED is that many such printers end up in
bedrooms and it would do to have the printer light up the whole room
at night.

So, which is it? Is computah hardware becoming more complicated, or
does exposure to computers cause the brain to turn into mush?
Neither.

This effect has been covered in detail in 'The Marching Morons' by C.
M. Kornbluth. 60 years after it was published, the story is more
pertinent than ever. It's well worth reading.

The fact is that when my Grandfather learned to drive there were a
number of operations required to start a car. Put the transmission in
neutral. Set the throttle to fast idle. Retard the spark. Apply the
choke. Crank slowly until you hit the compression point, then give it
a strong pull (DON'T push the crank with the thumb over the handle).
Repeat if necessary. Failure to carry out these steps properly
resulted in a flooded engine, the engine not starting, or a even a
broken arm.

The electric starter, automatic choke, automatic transmission, and
computer control module have eliminated the need for such care.
Maintenence that has to be performed every 1000 miles is now performed
at 10,000 to 100,000 mile intervals.

A similar thing has happened with computers over the last 45 years.
In 1967 to run a program I had to enter the program steps on IBM cards
using a keypunch. Any mistakes and the program wouldn't run. There
were also idiocyncries of the language to be avoided. As the hardware
evolved, programs came on a half dozen (or more) floppy disks which we
had to load by hand. Configuring a printer could be a nightmare if
the appropriate driver wasn't included. Now the operating system is
preloaded, software (aps) is installed automagically, and any idiot
can use one without understanding anything about how the whole system
works

And I remember 20 years ago when I was performing telephone support
for OS/2, and some very nice lady called because she couldn't get her
new computer to print to her new printer. After some struggling, we
discovered the salesman had failed to sell her a printer cable.....

PlainBill

I've told this before but..
The TV tech went on a call for a TV that would not respond to the
remote. Tech arrives to find an elderly couple, the gentleman was in his
easy chair and proceeds to show the tech the remote doesn't work.
Unfamiliar with the remote, he holds it pointing at the ceiling so he
can see the buttons he needs to push. The tech told him to point it at
the TV, the repair was complete.
Mikek

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 12:25:58 -0700, PlainBill@yawhoo.com wrote:

So, which is it? Is computah hardware becoming more complicated, or
does exposure to computers cause the brain to turn into mush?
Neither.

This effect has been covered in detail in 'The Marching Morons' by C.
M. Kornbluth. 60 years after it was published, the story is more
pertinent than ever. It's well worth reading.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons>
I read it many years ago. Methinks the plot is unrealistic, the
assumptions invalid, and predictions defective.

You might be reading a bit too much into this automobile repair story.
None of the participants even remotely quality as being below average
intelligence. Of the four (including myself), we have 2 electronic
engineers, one mechanical engineer, and a machine shop owner. My
question revolved around why 3 presumably intelligent people could not
figure out how find and replace a fuse.

The fact is that when my Grandfather learned to drive there were a
number of operations required to start a car. Put the transmission in
neutral. Set the throttle to fast idle. Retard the spark. Apply the
choke. Crank slowly until you hit the compression point, then give it
a strong pull (DON'T push the crank with the thumb over the handle).
Repeat if necessary. Failure to carry out these steps properly
resulted in a flooded engine, the engine not starting, or a even a
broken arm.

I used to drive a 1970 Land Rover Series IIa.
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/home/slides/land_rover3.html>
It had a crank start. The first time I tried it, the crank launched
me about a foot into the air and down hard on the front bumper. I was
more successful with subsequent starts. After spending literally
every Saturday under the car, fixing something different each time, I
decided that something more reliable might be a good idea.

The electric starter, automatic choke, automatic transmission, and
computer control module have eliminated the need for such care.
Maintenence that has to be performed every 1000 miles is now performed
at 10,000 to 100,000 mile intervals.

This is the good side of automotive maintenance progress. The bad
side is that your grandfather could probably have fixed anything on
his vehicle with baling wire and bubble gum. These days, it requires
a computer program, and factory trained guru to decode the OBD2 codes
and results. In addition, todays cars may not need scheduled
maintenance for many thousands of miles, they will still break down
before the scheduled maintenance. It's not the operating parts of the
vehicle that seem to break. It's the myriad of sensors, black boxes,
and convenience features that break first. Operation of the vehicle
is also far from clear. My Subaru has a seat warmer switch, that took
me about 2 hours to find and turn off in order not to get a hot seat.
I still don't know where the rear window defroster is hidden, and the
function of a mysterious dashboard lighting switch. (Yes, I read the
manual).

A similar thing has happened with computers over the last 45 years.
In 1967 to run a program I had to enter the program steps on IBM cards
using a keypunch. Any mistakes and the program wouldn't run. There
were also idiocyncries of the language to be avoided. As the hardware
evolved, programs came on a half dozen (or more) floppy disks which we
had to load by hand. Configuring a printer could be a nightmare if
the appropriate driver wasn't included. Now the operating system is
preloaded, software (aps) is installed automagically, and any idiot
can use one without understanding anything about how the whole system
works

Yep. I went through all that and suspect I todays computers are
genuinely better. However, I'm not quite sure. In 1981, my first IBM
PC 5150 took about 5 minutes to boot. 30 years later, it still takes
5 minutes (or more). This is not progress.

I do agree that the level of intelligence required to operate a
computer has decreased to the point where most people can
theoretically operate one. The various pad computers were a big step
forward. However, I again have my doubts, having seen the mess these
permanent beginners can make of a machine. Since there are also the
largest potential growth market segment, I suspect we will soon seem
computers that even the totally clueless can operate. Whether this is
a good thing will remain unanswered.

And I remember 20 years ago when I was performing telephone support
for OS/2, and some very nice lady called because she couldn't get her
new computer to print to her new printer. After some struggling, we
discovered the salesman had failed to sell her a printer cable.....

Chuckle. I haven't experienced that one. However, that was fairly
typical for the late 1980's and 1990's. Here's my list of horror
stories:
<http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/95q1/compnightmares.html>
That begs another unanswered question. Are we making smarter users or
just better computers that prevent users from hurting themselves? I
suspect the latter.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

"better computers that prevent users from hurting themselves? I
suspect the latter"

There is the biggest problem. I hope y'all don't mind my two cents here but people might be getting stupider. I have a set of beliefs which of course are not adhered to, but they should : Practically all safety devices should be illegal.

I was watching the boob tube a few years ago (can't stand it at all anymore) and they had this dandy table saw. It had some sort of sensor that made it stop the blade within microseconds should someone touch it.

Well there are millons of table saws out there without this feature and if you happen to buy one of these new dandy ones, and then for whatever reason have to use a different one, what might happen ? And how do they get someone to demonstrate the thing in the first place ? Do they look for salesmen wearing a Jefffoxworthyesque stupid sign ? (two bucks apiece, two for five)

Well in my opinion this should apply to everything. Instead of seatbelts and airbags in cars they should have pointy, LETHAL things sticking out the dashboard. On the other hand the doors should be triple reinforced, like with railroad tracks or something. net result : If you drive like an (_|_) and hit things, you might die. If you get Tboned, the person who hit you might die but you will live. Within a couple of years there would be no car accidents. People would actually watch where they're going instead of having a contest to see how many other things they can do while driving.

It pisses me off, all this automatic shit. When I open the car door I want the courtesy light to go on, and I want it to go off immediately when I close the door. Period. I will lock and unlock the doors thank you. I know when to turn on the headlights. I know the seatbelt is there, and I swear one of these days I am going to start a business doing one thing - getting rid of those damn beepers that bug you to put on your seat belt. I'll probably make a fortune. One thing I will accept is a beep if the door opens and the keys are in the ignition. ONE BEEP, got it ? Can the engineering department count to one ?

And brownwares ? This is getting ridiculous. You want to hear a wierd one about a TV ? OK, a Sony XBR direct view, CRT. The CRT had been changed. The set was back becasue the picture would gradually turn all red, that is the green and blue would drop out. The cure ? Adjust the vertical height and centering.

This one required discovering the failure mode to cure, but in some cases you might not have to. In this unit, the CRT installed was rebuilt and apparently there was something a little different about the envelope. I scoped the AKB pulses and though there was no green or blue on the screen there was plenty of feedback going to the AKB pin of the jungle.

A slight convergence error OFF THE SCRREN at the top was causing the beam to hit some element in the tube, most likely the frame around the shadow mask, and it was getting more feedback from that for whatever reason. I suspect in the CRTs made for the sets with AKB that frame or whatever it was had a coating on it to prevent this occurance.

Once I had to change a chip in a vertical circuit because the set would not switch to video input. That was easy, internal leakage was partially shorting out the data bus. The normal stuff worked, like the picture controls etc., but the option codes had not loaded so it didn't know about any video inputs.

This is all automation working for us. If you think diagnostic codes are bad in cars, they are worse in brownwares. Now that they want to detect shorts by absence of supply voltages it mucks things up. All hail one shutdown circuit. Long time ago a coworker quipped that it's getting to where a bad speaker can cause no high voltage. Well XBR to the front again. A CRT based RPTV, I detected no vertical as it shutdown. I repaired that and it still shut down, even though I scoped it and confirmed that the vertical was now up and running.

Above the chassis was the amp for the subwoofer which was down at the bottom of the cabinet. I had left it unplugged and the set sensed it and shut down. So there you have it for sure - a bad speaker can cause no high voltage.. I just happened to temporarily introduce high resistance to the voice coil at the time.

In the end, it is all about control. At one time I was going to build some things, actually advanced diagnostic devices. I thought about how to not only protect my ideas, but being on the other side of the fence I wanted captive service if possible. That can take some doing when the customers are techs in the first place. After all none of this stuff is made to be serviced anymore. Look at the service manuals for plasma TVs and find the waveforms that are supposed to be output from the Y and Z sustain boards. They give you clk timing on the main board which you almost never fix but replace, they give you the flat lines on the 5 volts, 3.3 and so forth, but what really makes the thing work is absent.

Cars may be different but not much. You can't just drop an ECM in a car anymore, it has to be programmed for it. One third of brownware problems are now due to software issues, many of them not fixable. Sometimes you can flash the firmware but usually not. They need you to need them.

At this moment I am thinking about my next car. Most of what I want is expensive now, and it would probably have ignition points. Stickshift. Power NOTHING.

Oh, and us hillbillies have advanced from the baling wire etc. The most modern methods now include duct tape and coat hangers. I notice it is getting harder to procure metal coat hangers, an fact I suspect a conspiracy. In fact the entire computer revolution was a conspiracy to eliminate paper clips.. There was a time I could make almost $100 with a paper clip.

So much for my 3 AM rant.

 

On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 00:57:45 -0800 (PST), jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

"better computers that prevent users from hurting themselves? I
suspect the latter"

There is the biggest problem. I hope y'all don't mind my two cents here but people might be getting stupider. I have a set of beliefs which of course are not adhered to, but they should : Practically all safety devices should be illegal.

I was watching the boob tube a few years ago (can't stand it at all anymore) and they had this dandy table saw. It had some sort of sensor that made it stop the blade within microseconds should someone touch it.

Well there are millons of table saws out there without this feature and if you happen to buy one of these new dandy ones, and then for whatever reason have to use a different one, what might happen ? And how do they get someone to demonstrate the thing in the first place ? Do they look for salesmen wearing a Jefffoxworthyesque stupid sign ? (two bucks apiece, two for five)

Well in my opinion this should apply to everything. Instead of seatbelts and airbags in cars they should have pointy, LETHAL things sticking out the dashboard. On the other hand the doors should be triple reinforced, like with railroad tracks or something. net result : If you drive like an (_|_) and hit things, you might die. If you get Tboned, the person who hit you might die but you will live. Within a couple of years there would be no car accidents. People would actually watch where they're going instead of having a contest to see how many other things they can do while driving.

It pisses me off, all this automatic shit. When I open the car door I want the courtesy light to go on, and I want it to go off immediately when I close the door. Period. I will lock and unlock the doors thank you. I know when to turn on the headlights. I know the seatbelt is there, and I swear one of these days I am going to start a business doing one thing - getting rid of those damn beepers that bug you to put on your seat belt. I'll probably make a fortune. One thing I will accept is a beep if the door opens and the keys are in the ignition. ONE BEEP, got it ? Can the engineering department count to one ?

And brownwares ? This is getting ridiculous. You want to hear a wierd one about a TV ? OK, a Sony XBR direct view, CRT. The CRT had been changed. The set was back becasue the picture would gradually turn all red, that is the green and blue would drop out. The cure ? Adjust the vertical height and centering.

This one required discovering the failure mode to cure, but in some cases you might not have to. In this unit, the CRT installed was rebuilt and apparently there was something a little different about the envelope. I scoped the AKB pulses and though there was no green or blue on the screen there was plenty of feedback going to the AKB pin of the jungle.

A slight convergence error OFF THE SCRREN at the top was causing the beam to hit some element in the tube, most likely the frame around the shadow mask, and it was getting more feedback from that for whatever reason. I suspect in the CRTs made for the sets with AKB that frame or whatever it was had a coating on it to prevent this occurance.

Once I had to change a chip in a vertical circuit because the set would not switch to video input. That was easy, internal leakage was partially shorting out the data bus. The normal stuff worked, like the picture controls etc., but the option codes had not loaded so it didn't know about any video inputs.

This is all automation working for us. If you think diagnostic codes are bad in cars, they are worse in brownwares. Now that they want to detect shorts by absence of supply voltages it mucks things up. All hail one shutdown circuit. Long time ago a coworker quipped that it's getting to where a bad speaker can cause no high voltage. Well XBR to the front again. A CRT based RPTV, I detected no vertical as it shutdown. I repaired that and it still shut down, even though I scoped it and confirmed that the vertical was now up and running.

Above the chassis was the amp for the subwoofer which was down at the bottom of the cabinet. I had left it unplugged and the set sensed it and shut down. So there you have it for sure - a bad speaker can cause no high voltage. I just happened to temporarily introduce high resistance to the voice coil at the time.

In the end, it is all about control. At one time I was going to build some things, actually advanced diagnostic devices. I thought about how to not only protect my ideas, but being on the other side of the fence I wanted captive service if possible. That can take some doing when the customers are techs in the first place. After all none of this stuff is made to be serviced anymore. Look at the service manuals for plasma TVs and find the waveforms that are supposed to be output from the Y and Z sustain boards. They give you clk timing on the main board which you almost never fix but replace, they give you the flat lines on the 5 volts, 3.3 and so forth, but what really makes the thing work is absent.

Cars may be different but not much. You can't just drop an ECM in a car anymore, it has to be programmed for it. One third of brownware problems are now due to software issues, many of them not fixable. Sometimes you can flash the firmware but usually not. They need you to need them.

At this moment I am thinking about my next car. Most of what I want is expensive now, and it would probably have ignition points. Stickshift. Power NOTHING.

Oh, and us hillbillies have advanced from the baling wire etc. The most modern methods now include duct tape and coat hangers. I notice it is getting harder to procure metal coat hangers, an fact I suspect a conspiracy. In fact the entire computer revolution was a conspiracy to eliminate paper clips. There was a time I could make almost $100 with a paper clip.

So much for my 3 AM rant.
I have mixed feelings about the new technology used in automobiles.

Overall, I would have to say profound improvements have been made.
That does not mean some of the 'improvements' don't drive me nuts. I
detest airbags. The idea of driving holding onto a device that will
do it's best to smash my arms into my face in case of an accident is
crazy. Protecting me in case I forgot to wear my seatbelt is
unnecessary - I refuse to go anywhere without my seatbelt fastened.

Yes, some of the power features will go bad before the rest of the
vehicle wears out. On the other hand, the power train is more
reliable than ever.

I compare two vehicles we have owned - a 1969 Dodge station wagon, and
a 2002 Honda Odyssey.

Throughout it's life, the Dodge had to have the oil changed every
1500 miles, spark plugs and points replaced every 15,000 miles, the
muffler and tail pipe were both replaced twice, brake shoes had to be
replaced, etc. In addition, it had a number of annoying failures.
The heater control cable would buckle, diodes in the alternator
failed, the heater blower motor failed (requiring pulling the entore
heater assembly). And in spite of the best efforts, by teh time it
had 100,000 miles it was ready for the junkyard.

The main maintenence item on the Odyssey is the oil change every 3000
miles. And the brake pads had to be replaced twice. No points, no
new spark plugs, still has the original exhaust system. Of course, it
had it's own set of annoying failures. The power window mechanism
fails in a particularly annoying manner - a plastic retainer breaks,
releasing the actuator cable. One of the remote 'fobs' failed. The
engine mounts failed. The alernator mounting bracket broke!! On the
other hand, I didn't have to replace the spark plugs until after
100,000 miles, it still has to original exhaust system, and at 150,000
miles it still is running well.

 

[Gareth Magennis]

Blimey, there's a whole load of shite coming out of your head.

Have you ever thought about taking up knitting instead? It's so much
calmer.




Gareth.

 

[DaveC]

In the future, I expect things to become more and more complicated. I
also see devices, like printers, engaging in a dialog with the user
and with other devices, to determine what the user wants to do. It
then negotiates the parameters and settings automatically between
devices. Put the iPad and printer next to each other, yell "connect
me", and they will. Send the printer some data, and it's a fair
assumption that one wants it to power on in preparation for printing.
Don't do anything for a few minutes, and it's a fair assumption that
the printer should power down. AI (artificial intelligence) was the
big thing in the late 1970's, but where is it today?

Ok, I've had my rant.
[Jeff L.]

A YouTube'r I like to watch is mikeselectricstuff. He's a brilliant engineer
and is always reviewing and taking stuff apart.

His reviews -- more often than not -- end with this conclusion: the hardware
is excellent and the UI firmware/software/design is crap. He points out how
potentially fabulous this bit of kit could be if the UI was halfway
competent.

Here's a couple of good examples:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzHZFcVofUg&list=UUcs0ZkP_as4PpHDhFcmCHyA&inde
x=2>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJv2iCieeeM

IMO, user interface is designed by people who probably wouldn't use the
product.

When I worked at Apple (tech writer, decades ago) we would do a draft of a
manual and then get a prospective customer -- "target audience" -- (someone
from HR or such in this example) and put them in a room with a new product,
in box, and let them go to it, videotaping the experience. The feedback is
what made Apple's documents receive awards on top of awards.

If companies (ANY manufacturer) would do this for their UI, most issues would
be resolved before the product hit the shelf. But being "a race to the
bottom", I don't hold much hope.

 

[Adrian Jansen]

.... snip

IMO, user interface is designed by people who probably wouldn't use the
product.


My favorite 'how not to' example is a dustpan, made with strengthening

ridges on the bottom sides of the pan, in such a way that its impossible
to put the front edge of the pan flat on the floor to pick up the
sweepings - they go underneath the raised edge on the front lip created
by the ridges. Obviously the designer ( and any subsequent reviewers )
never used a pan.

--
Regards,

Adrian Jansen adrianjansen at internode dot on dot net
Note reply address is invalid, convert address above to machine form.

 

[Charlie E.]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:56:15 -0700, DaveC <invalid@invalid.net> wrote:

In the future, I expect things to become more and more complicated. I
also see devices, like printers, engaging in a dialog with the user
and with other devices, to determine what the user wants to do. It
then negotiates the parameters and settings automatically between
devices. Put the iPad and printer next to each other, yell "connect
me", and they will. Send the printer some data, and it's a fair
assumption that one wants it to power on in preparation for printing.
Don't do anything for a few minutes, and it's a fair assumption that
the printer should power down. AI (artificial intelligence) was the
big thing in the late 1970's, but where is it today?

Ok, I've had my rant.
[Jeff L.]

A YouTube'r I like to watch is mikeselectricstuff. He's a brilliant engineer
and is always reviewing and taking stuff apart.

His reviews -- more often than not -- end with this conclusion: the hardware
is excellent and the UI firmware/software/design is crap. He points out how
potentially fabulous this bit of kit could be if the UI was halfway
competent.

Here's a couple of good examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzHZFcVofUg&list=UUcs0ZkP_as4PpHDhFcmCHyA&inde
x=2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJv2iCieeeM

IMO, user interface is designed by people who probably wouldn't use the
product.

When I worked at Apple (tech writer, decades ago) we would do a draft of a
manual and then get a prospective customer -- "target audience" -- (someone
from HR or such in this example) and put them in a room with a new product,
in box, and let them go to it, videotaping the experience. The feedback is
what made Apple's documents receive awards on top of awards.

If companies (ANY manufacturer) would do this for their UI, most issues would
be resolved before the product hit the shelf. But being "a race to the
bottom", I don't hold much hope.
About a decade ago, we did this, but it was a dismal failure.

I worked with the installation group of a fairly popular circuit
simulation program, and someone had the bright idea to have the CEO
test out the installation...

A few hours later... ;-)

Charlie

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:56:15 -0700, DaveC <invalid@invalid.net> wrote:

In the future, I expect things to become more and more complicated. I
also see devices, like printers, engaging in a dialog with the user
and with other devices, to determine what the user wants to do. It
then negotiates the parameters and settings automatically between
devices. Put the iPad and printer next to each other, yell "connect
me", and they will. Send the printer some data, and it's a fair
assumption that one wants it to power on in preparation for printing.
Don't do anything for a few minutes, and it's a fair assumption that
the printer should power down. AI (artificial intelligence) was the
big thing in the late 1970's, but where is it today?

Ok, I've had my rant.
[Jeff L.]

Most of my frustrations were unloaded in the original thread:
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/browse_thread/thread/a1ebf6c32667db31/>

IMO, user interface is designed by people who probably wouldn't use the
product.

In a past life, I helped design several marine radios. The user
interface was designed by a genuine industrial designer, with input
from literally everyone that could possibly render an opinion. That
included the janitor and random visitors. Part of my responsibility
was to document all these great ideas for the industrial designer so
that he could concentrate on the aesthetics and ergonomics. As a
result, usability took third place behind feature bloat and artistic
packaging. By the time the front panel was presented to engineering,
it was obvious that we were in trouble. There weren't a sufficient
number of buttons to handle all the features. So, each button had
multiple functions, depending on whether it was tapped, held for 1
second, or held for more than 3 seconds. Considerable effort and wine
went into crafting said interface, but the inevitable result was a
miserable compromise. Marketing insisted that the radio with the most
features would sell best, so there was no way to remove features or
add buttons. We built a mockup and tried my usability test on various
non-technical employees including the marketing manager. Nobody could
operate it. There was even some difficulty in turning it on and off.
Someone suggested that we have 3 modes (crude, basic and advanced)
where some of the obscure functions were simply disabled. Everyone
could operate it in crude mode, but the others required both RTFM and
practice. We shipped a data logger with several radios, and found
that 99% of the wiz-bang functions were never used.

Lesson learned: Features, functions and complexity sell products, but
drive the users nuts.

When I worked at Apple (tech writer, decades ago) we would do a draft of a
manual and then get a prospective customer -- "target audience" -- (someone
from HR or such in this example) and put them in a room with a new product,
in box, and let them go to it, videotaping the experience. The feedback is
what made Apple's documents receive awards on top of awards.

Any product that is worthwhile should be intuitive and not require a
manual. These daze, manuals are shipped on CD's and never read until
something goes wrong. If the product needs a manual to use, there's
something wrong. Besides, today's manuals are mostly legal
disclaimers, court ordered warnings, and patent notices.

Lesson learned: Assume that users are NOT going to RTFM.

If companies (ANY manufacturer) would do this for their UI, most issues would
be resolved before the product hit the shelf. But being "a race to the
bottom", I don't hold much hope.

You're optimizing whale oil and sealing wax. Manuals and static user
interfaces are dead, or at least should be dead. A proper user
interface adjusts itself to what the user is doing, offering only
those choices which are involved in whatever the user is trying to
accomplish. A banking machine is a good example. You are presented
with a minimum number of selections, all of which are appropriate to
the current operation or mode. This results in more menus, but fewer
choices.

I had the displeasure of proving the point when my father, the
original permanent computer beginner, was trying to learn how to use
his shiny new 1981(?) Altos AOS business computer system. I
translated the menus from English to Polish, which was a big help, but
he was still lost when presented with 20 menu choices per page. When
I reduced it down to 5 choices, he was elated.

You can demonstrate how it works by asking someone to add a column of
numbers, first with a 4 function calculator, and then with a
scientific calculator. The 4 function is easy, but the scientific
will usually cause a beginner to panic. Yet, they have the same
numeric keypad and arithmetic buttons, usually in similar locations.
The difference is the scientific calculator has far too much static
clutter in the form of unused buttons, which add confusion.

Lesson learned: The purpose of a user interface is to REDUCE the
number of choices, not bury the user in irrelevant over choice and
complexity.

About 10 years ago, I designed a user interface for a radio. It was
sufficiently unique that the company engineers and marketing people
were afraid that users would not intuitively understand how to operate
the radio. A few tests confirmed their suspicions. So, I now have to
wait until some clueless competitor produces something similar, so my
client company doesn't need to take any risks being innovative. If
you're wondering why you're seeing the same broken user interfaces
repeated ad infinitum, this is why.

Lesson learned: Innovative user interfaces are risky.

OK. End of yet another rant...

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 06:43:25 +1000, Adrian Jansen <adrian@qq.vv.net>
wrote:

IMO, user interface is designed by people who probably wouldn't use the
product.

The best measure of the quality of a product is employee theft. It's
not worth stealing something that they know doesn't work or will
break.

My favorite 'how not to' example is a dustpan, made with strengthening
ridges on the bottom sides of the pan, in such a way that its impossible
to put the front edge of the pan flat on the floor to pick up the
sweepings - they go underneath the raised edge on the front lip created
by the ridges. Obviously the designer ( and any subsequent reviewers )
never used a pan.

You may wish to browse the "Made by Monkeys" column found in Design
News magazine:
<http://www.designnews.com/archives.asp?section_id=1367>
Every month, they feature one or two poorly designed or poorly built
products. I don't recall reading about your dust pan problem, but
there are some that are similar.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[lektric.dan@gmail.com]

On Mar 25, 3:43 pm, Adrian Jansen <adr...@qq.vv.net> wrote:

My favorite 'how not to' example is a dustpan, made with strengthening
ridges on the bottom sides of the pan, in such a way that its impossible
to put the front edge of the pan flat on the floor to pick up the
sweepings - they go underneath the raised edge on the front lip created
by the ridges.  Obviously the designer ( and any subsequent reviewers )
never used a pan.

*MY* favorite (actually, most hated...) "how not to" is the spare tire
carrier on domestic (Ford, GMC, etc.) full-size trucks. My folks had
a car repair and tire place. I've cursed out loud in front of my
mother while trying to remove/replace a tire under a truck. A
(slightly) better design is the chain hoist system used on some
smaller imports. I hope there's a special place in hell for the
Mercedes-driving engineer that designed this thing (you know HE never
changed a flat in his life!).

 

[lektric.dan@gmail.com]

On Mar 25, 8:17 pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:

In a past life, I helped design several marine radios. (snip)

Speaking of radios and user interfaces...I had a Kenwood receiver in
one of my cars. Great radio, great sound. The one problem was that
they used the volume "knob" as a joystick to get multiple functions
out of it. When you pressed it in, it switched to the sub-woofer
menu. There was no easy way to exit the menu. If you were sitting
still, this would seldom be a problem, but in a moving, bouncing,
vibrating car, it's quite likely that you will push the knob in while
trying to adjust the volume. Then you have to try to manipulate your
way through the menus without taking your eyes off of the road for
more than a split second. I finally started popping the faceplate off
and back on, whenever I got into the menu system accidentally. This
turned the receiver off, and let me resume normal operation. Kenwood
stopped using this interface with this model.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 01:08:28 -0700 (PDT), "lektric.dan@gmail.com"
<lektric.dan@gmail.com> wrote:

*MY* favorite (actually, most hated...) "how not to" is the spare tire
carrier on domestic (Ford, GMC, etc.) full-size trucks. My folks had
a car repair and tire place. I've cursed out loud in front of my
mother while trying to remove/replace a tire under a truck. A
(slightly) better design is the chain hoist system used on some
smaller imports. I hope there's a special place in hell for the
Mercedes-driving engineer that designed this thing (you know HE never
changed a flat in his life!).

My former 1983 Dodge D50 pickup had a chain hoist spare tire under the
bed. Great idea until I blew a rear tire and high centered the rear
axle while driving on a dirt road on the way to a mountain top radio
site. In order to lower the tire, a long hand crank was provided. The
problem was that I was backed up against a hillside, and could not get
the long crank into the hole. I had to dig out part of the hillside
for it to fit. In order to remove the spare tire, I had to jack up
the pickup bed about 3 ft off the ground, and crawl under the raised
bed to release the toggle link holding the tire to the chain. Of
course, with the tire lowered, the toggle link is UNDER the tire on
the ground. I raised it with a bottle jack and a rather unstable pile
of rocks. While replacing the blown tire, the pile of rocks and jack
did partially collapse. Perhaps in your parents tire store, it might
work, but on a dirt road, it's not easy.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 01:08:28 -0700 (PDT), "lektric.dan@gmail.com"
lektric.dan@gmail.com> wrote:

*MY* favorite (actually, most hated...) "how not to" is the spare tire
carrier on domestic (Ford, GMC, etc.) full-size trucks. My folks had
a car repair and tire place. I've cursed out loud in front of my
mother while trying to remove/replace a tire under a truck. A
(slightly) better design is the chain hoist system used on some
smaller imports. I hope there's a special place in hell for the
Mercedes-driving engineer that designed this thing (you know HE never
changed a flat in his life!).

My former 1983 Dodge D50 pickup had a chain hoist spare tire under the
bed. Great idea until I blew a rear tire and high centered the rear
axle while driving on a dirt road on the way to a mountain top radio
site. In order to lower the tire, a long hand crank was provided. The
problem was that I was backed up against a hillside, and could not get
the long crank into the hole. I had to dig out part of the hillside
for it to fit. In order to remove the spare tire, I had to jack up
the pickup bed about 3 ft off the ground, and crawl under the raised
bed to release the toggle link holding the tire to the chain. Of
course, with the tire lowered, the toggle link is UNDER the tire on
the ground. I raised it with a bottle jack and a rather unstable pile
of rocks. While replacing the blown tire, the pile of rocks and jack
did partially collapse. Perhaps in your parents tire store, it might
work, but on a dirt road, it's not easy.

I carried some scarp pieces of 2x12 in my '79 Dodge pickup. If I had
a flat, I would stack them against the flat tire and pull the truck up
on top of them to be able to get the factory jack under the tire.
Without the extra height, you couldn't get the jack to the jacking
points on the frame.

--

Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

Sometimes Friday is just the fifth Monday of the week.