Yes. You can't "win" -- show them proof and they get indignant (as if you're calling them a liar -- even though they may have honestly "misremembered").
But, if you make it "general knowledge" that you keep detailed notes (i.e., archive emails), folks are far less aggressive in pursuing an "opinion" when they hear you CONFIDENTLY stating otherwise! ("Hmmm... he can probably pull up a written record of this so I'd better not be TOO insistent as I may well be wrong!")
It doesn't work. Most robodialers don't even bother to *listen* for the caller's voice -- they just rattle off their spiel "unconditionally". At times, I wonder if they keep rattling even after you've hung up (in some places, the call isn't disconnected until the *caller* hangs up; you could conceivably pick the receiver back up and hear them still blathering...)
IMO, you need control on *your* end of the line, not theirs. I.e., don't count on them to stop calling. Instead, stop
*answering*! And, if you do answer, be selective about when you "ring through" vs. route to voice mail vs. decide it was a mistake to answer! :>
After the first 4 or 5 times I provided old emails to people, they stopped being so insistent! :)
Our MD's, their office staff, etc. all gladly leave voice mails. I suspect they are smart enough (and self-interested enough!) to NOT want to have to "try again later". Leaving a message allows them to claim they have "done their job" -- even though there is a possibility that they may have misdialed! (they usually don't leave any information -- besides our first names -- that would let some misdialed recipient figure out who they are talking about)
But, it *isn't* -- that's the whole point!
What I am doing is exactly whaat a "human being" would do in these circumstances.
By way of (strained) example, imagine you've got a young child at home, alone, while you are away (forget how BAD this is when it comes to parenting skills).
You'd never let that child open the door unconditionally. You'd train them to look and see who it is, recognize their voice, etc. and ONLY answer for a certain group of individuals.
Likewise, you wouldn't have them answer every incoming call -- it could "leak" information to a potential thief ("There's no one home but some KID!"), scammer, etc. Instead, you'd have them examine the caller ID before picking up the receiver and only doing so if it was a name/number that they recognized (Penny, Uncle Tony, Bob, etc.).
And, having picked up the phone on the assumption that it was , the child would expect to hear skills that you have to make new ideas technically work. I suppose I do
Exactly.
I made a "pitch" to upper management about a new device that I would be designing. In researching competitors' products, our past sales, etc. I came up with what I thought was the "right" set of capabilitites/features (keeping in mind that every feature costs money).
When I pitched my design, I caught all sorts of objections from folks like Sales/Marketing -- objecting to features that I had
*removed* from the design (that had been present in previous product offerings).Having researched *ALL* of our past sales (by meticulously examining all of the old, archived purchase orders!), I was able to tell *them* exactly how popular certain features were. And, actually tell them the serial number(s) of the units that were sold with those features.
Do this *once* and folks take notice. They're far less insistent about how much they *NEED* a particular feature ("If Don has eliminated it, then he's probably got some paperwork to show that it wasn't very popular... AND, he knows how much it will cost to add those features so this is an argument we're likely to lose!")
[Of course, if there is a genuine NEED, they could push for it and TELL ME WHY MY CONCLUSIONS -- based on past sales -- ARE WRONG. But, now *they* have to go on the record as having added a requirement to the design -- and the costs that are associated with that. Better make damn sure you can actually *sell* that feature to a paying customer once you've done that! :> ]
There aren't many people who actually think about all the details like you think about the details, and then believe that you can apply those details to a technology that works. Many people just end up thinking about a few details and get irritated if you break it down step by step like you do. I LOVE the details - for example, the intricate list of how to get from point A to point Z, or even going backwards from point "H" back to point "A" to define how a series of events either caused or influenced how someone arrived at point "H" in the first place. Then analyze that information to determine if the sequence of events could be changed at a later date to arrive at a better version of point "H" next time around.
I think what you do is analyzing by common sense on steroids, which is really cool to do, imo.
hahah! Awesome.
Once upon a time I had a sales consultant try to tell me I was using the wrong tool to accomplish a particular task, and I tried to keep telling them that THEY were using the wrong tool. It was my job to know several tools and how each tool did a different task. At one point he stood up and told me if I didn't stop using that tool he'd go to the BIG boss and have him MAKE me stop using it. LOL I looked at the assistant manager who was in the room with me while this consultant ranted and right about this time he gave me this look like "don't say it!" hahaha I smiled at the consultant and told him to go ahead and try to get the BIG boss to do that, got up and let the room while he was still ranting. Turns out he tried with the big boss and the big boss told him to back off!
Muggles posted for all of us...
He should have been unconsulted out the door.
The technology is the easy part. The hard part is presenting it to the user in a way that isn't intimidating, doesn't require the device to "train them" (in how it wants to be used), etc.
E.g., my telephone screening tool could be implemented by sitting down and WRITING OUT a bunch of "rules":
- if there is no caller ID, then don't answer the phone
- if the caller ID matches someone in *this* list, don't answer
- if the caller ID matches someone in this OTHER list...
- if the voice matches someone on this list...
- if the time of day is between...
- if the caller successfully passes these tests... etc. If you're a geek, this may be a perfectly acceptable way of doing things. If you AREN'T, it's total crap!
If you had a secretary and had to spell things out in this level of detail, then you're either guilty of micromanaging that individual
*or*, you hired someone who doesn't have the desired skills for the job (namely, being able to learn from observing your actions and "write the rules for their *own* benefit" -- instead of needing you to write them for them!)Most folks would immediately put a "display" in the system -- to "show" the user what the system is doing. I.e., converting a device that *could* be used with JUST your ears into a device that REQUIRES your eyes (and hands -- to manipulate the inevitable "keyboard" that they would include).
IME, this is what makes the difference between a "hack" and a genuine "solution".
[The percentage of devices returned because "user couldn't understand how to use it" is STAGGERING! Consider each of those is a lost sale AND an unhappy customer... AND, lost "product". So, coming up with a user interface that JUST "works" -- and little more -- is a wasted effort. It has to work WELL, be easily understood, etc!]
He was around for a few more months off and on, and then I never saw him around any more.
I've had some fun before writing out rules for a particular program I used.
That makes complete sense to me.
Most folks don't want to "be bothered" by their appliances. They just want them to "work".
Designers often think that users want all sorts of "customization capabilities". They *do*! But, they want the device customized the way THEY want it when they make the purchase (i.e., they don't want to have to figure out how to do this customization -- yet want to know that the device fits *their* needs and not the needs of The Unwashed Masses)
So, devices need to *learn* what their users want and adapt -- instead of requiring their users to learn how to "adapt them"!
Computers? I get snail mail spam from the local hearing aid peddler but fortunately I can still hear incoming hummingbirds despite a lifetime of loud bikes music, and firearms.
I do wonder about the morons who keep saying 'Hello? Hello?' to a machine. The greeting is generic female robot with 'Please leave your message after the tone.'
I get a certain number that can't figure it out even with the message.
Last week several programmers and myself had to search out and package up emails going back to 2010 to present to our lawyer. That was a pain in the butt but I pity the poor legal assistant that gets the job of preparing an presentable exhibit.
My favorite is after our support people do a binary update and the client loudly complains 'It doesn't do X anymore!'. Usually a source code review points out it never did X. The next email is 'Well it should!'.
I'm dealing with one client right now who is adamant that our validation algorithm is inadequate. I'm happily going to give him exactly what he asked for. Then, in a few weeks, when the people who actually use the software surround him with hot tar and sacks of feathers I'll tell him who to turn the feature off. Maybe.
Sounds like a day in my life. I emailed one of our support people today to ask which of the three proposals the client wanted to go with. The reply was 'What were those three again?' Resend the email I sent two weeks ago with suitably snarky comments.
Yup. I've got the last 15 years of emails tarred, zipped, and distributed over several machines to say nothing of the off site backups.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.