Jinx wrote:
>> In general, the more bits you have, the more it goes wrong
>>     
>
> In some cases more bits implies more functionality. Functionality
> that might be excess to requirements. For example a friend's
> flash nattty toaster broke down a while ago and I offered to see
> if it could be easily repaired. It could, by by-passing the burnt-out
> control electronics
>
> Now it's a toaster again, but simply an element, just like the good
> old days. It toasts just as well as it did but now the user has to do
> their part
>
> Functionality and the resulting complexity has two sides - it pushes
> manufacturers to be creative and innovative, but it also boggles and
> confuses consumers. Cellphones for example - "I just want a phone
> that you can make phone calls on", or cars that you can tinker with
> on a Saturday without needing a computer science diploma
>
> So what's the answer ? Build with minimum number of components
> to do the job ? Accept that complexity has a down-side ?
>
> It's not a simple subject if you're going to figure customer's epectations
> into the equation
>
>   
Or my left-handed wife, who blissfully purchased a Blackberry on Monday, 
only to find after she received it
yesterday (no stores had any, so she couldn't check it out before she 
bought online) that the blackberry only
moves the cursor with buttons on the RIGHT-hand side of the case. So she 
simply can't work the darned
thing. And we went back to the website... It never indicates that it is 
for right-handed people only....

--Bob

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist