Ah. I think I see the confusion. When I referred to knowing whether the software "works" for a group of users or not, I'm talking about something more than technical requirements. Even software that is technically functioning can fail to serve its intended purpose. The work we do with field studies surfaces this. That's the point I was trying to make with the anon example.
What I find concerning is the idea that a biased subset of our users would be categorically ignored for this type of evaluation. If you agree with me that such evaluation is valuable to our users, I think you ought to also find such categorical exclusions concerning.
Christian, I appreciate your response, but if you only say how I misunderstood you without suggestion how I might have understood you better, I don't see a way to continue the conversation.On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Christian Aistleitner <email@example.com> wrote:Hi Aaron,
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 09:23:13AM -0600, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
> You hold
> a minority opinion that testing software in the field is unnecessary.
Hey, that's not what I've said :-)
And this mis-interpretation of my previous email pretty much makes the
rest of your argument moot from my point of view.
> We're merely disagreeing about whether it is
> good to assume that DNT means [...]
And I respect that we have different opinions about DNT.
No doubt there.
> However, when you say that my work has no value, [...]
Again ... I think you're misreading my email.
I never said that your work has no value.
---- quelltextlich e.U. ---- \\ ---- Christian Aistleitner ----
Companies' registry: 360296y in Linz
Kefermarkterstrasze 6a/3 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
4293 Gutau, Austria Phone: +43 7946 / 20 5 81
Fax: +43 7946 / 20 5 81
Analytics mailing list