For me, Time Warner's broadband Road Runner internet capabilities beats Embarq's by a long shot. But both businesses culture's discourage initiative and customer service that really sucks big time.
They are their own biggest fault modality: of the issues that I've had to endure as a customer, virtually all have been caused directly by unthinking, bureaucratic actions on the part of TWC people. Of course, a few have also been caused by unthinking Embarq contractors as well, and maybe some of the fault lies with the marking people too.
Here's the pattern that has repeated itself over and over:
1) marker guy walks all over my property spraying paint on my lawn and driveway, along the street, etc, etc.
2) contractors come out to dig something in
3) me or one of my neighbors points out that the marker did not mark the cable and/or phone. We say clearly "DO NOT DIG HERE" because there is something buried. We tell every one of the contractors on site.
4) Contractors ignore our information, trench directly across the cables. We lose phone and/or cable service for a couple of days.
5) Finger pointing beings.
Not to mention that these companies constantly send people out without notification to spin these problems, but can never identify exactly when a crew will fix the problems. You're supposed to be home "sometime between 9 to 1" or some such huge window. And even if it is noted as a cable cut on their work order, they may well test the signal at the pole and mark it "resolved" if no one is home.
I'm fed up with them. This last time it was the phone contractor who restarted the cycle. They were digging in fiber across the street. We went over and told them, look at the pole: we have internet and cable service coming from that pole. Please don't cut it. They cut it. Several hours later, TWC shows up and patches the cable.
Ok, fine, they patched it. But a week later, they show up again, this time with trenchers. I tell them, there is a phone line buried in my driveway, and ask why in the world they are replacing my cable, when it is SOUND. The cut was across the street. THERE WAS NO REASON TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE SPAN OF CABLE. It was completely unjustified. No, they said, this is how it is done. So away they go, and cut my phone line. Too bad they say, it wasn't marked by the guys who do the marking.
So now my phone doesn't work, and who knows when service will be restored. Worse yet, it is as likely as not that they guys who come in to fix that will again show their lack of competence by cutting through something else.
Stuff like this makes me yearn for a way to do without a phone company or ISP. The technology is sufficiently advanced to conjecture that a peer-to-peer urban/suburban wireless last-mile architecture could work. Something like an ISP co-operative. Something where the network terminators were themselves extenders for a co-op owned network segment, and segments were strung together through their nearest neighbors, with support provided by the cooperative but no ISP restrictions by a corporate ISP.
Of my service providers, the two who stand out as shining examples are Wake Electric, and Freedom Federal Credit Union. I would be much happier doing business with one of these kinds of companies than TWC or Embarq, who have completely lost touch with their local customers.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Web Design in a Pig Pen
Several years ago, I put together a functional prototype in Joomla for a non-profit organization. In the process I hoped to educate them about how they could operate the site mostly by themselves, with minimal support costs after the site was up. Bear in mind that the site was substantially complete, and completely free to them. In discussing the site with a business member working with me on the site, he suggested that the non-profit could monetize the site by advertising. At that point, the board of the non-profit decided to give the site development to a local PHP Independent Software Developer (ISV). One of the board members had worked with the ISV on a business venture, and they liked the work that was done.
The board asked for a quote to create a Web site with unspecified features. Despite all the effort that had gone into analyzing and developing the site, it became evident that the non-profit had neither fully understood their own Web strategy nor appreciated the value of the efforts already expended, voluntarily, to create the basis of the necessary Web site. Knowing that the decisions had already been made, I first wrote a somewhat incensed response and then softened the tone, but still felt it important to include a detail of the risks and support issues regarding the ways a site could be deployed. Being a resident of the area served by the non-profit I am genuinely concerned about their success, but must admit I was not too troubled about not getting their business. The ISV was given the business having done nothing at all for the non-profit.
All I had lost was a substantial investment of my time, which after all was said and done, was offered voluntarily anyway. Still, I learned to be more discerning about the character of the non-profits for whom I perform work. I also learned that it is possible for people to completely miss a value proposition even when it is sitting in their lap staring them in the face and knocking on their forehead. Clarity in communication is key, and we did not have the ear of the power brokers on the board.
The non-profit had lost in the transaction too, not just from the thousands of dollars in work it had discarded, but also in demonstrating an organizational inability to be forthright with its volunteer members. Impressions like this last and have consequences far beyond what might initially be obvious.
No Good Deed Ever Goes Unpunished
Recently I had a chance to speak with the non-profit about their Web site in conjunction with a separate promotional initiative. It turned out that the ISV had used the non-profit -- their client's -- money to write custom software. Without full realization of their agreement the non-profit had funded the development of a home-brew, custom, one-of software product. The software was a kind of bare-bones PHP based content management system, intended for use as a community portal. Indeed, it appeared to be much like a version 0.3 level of any number of popular open source CMS projects like Joomla or Drupal.
The software was similar to Joomla because it used the same low-level PHP MVC framework and template engine. Yet the code was home-brew, and it was missing virtually all of the critical features of the mature CMS projects which in my professional opinion are critical for promotional activities. On the other hand, the features they had implemented could have easily been deployed using minor adaptations to existing components.
The non-profit client had paid several thousand dollars to the ISV, considerably more than the quality of the Web site might suggest to a good designer. Simply put, developing new Intellectual Property (IP) is expensive. It is considerably more costly than integrating off-the-shelf components and focusing on a coherent branding and a usable design. It is simply silly to pay a mechanic to build a car when they are commonly available both new and used. In the client's case, the initial cost was only two or three times the reasonable cost of a decent site. The ISV knew what would be "good enough" to pass acceptance by un-knowledgeable users and succeeded in that respect, but neither the design nor the software were worth several thousand.
In speaking with the client, it became evident that the most fundamental question of ownership of the IP were not well understood. They were more or less unaware of the distinction between having a Web site developed for them, and of funding someone else's proprietary software product. The issue was raised when the ISV refused to replace the site Flash banners saying they were a part of the code, not the content. It is unclear that the developer has any intent of releasing the source code, allowing access to the database, or providing enhancements to the site. Ownership of the IP is now an issue.
Such behavior sullies the profession and has an appearance of being unethical on its face. Simple updates, like posting a PDF file, are not possible. The client thought they were getting the ability to update any content on the site, but the ISV's response is that posting some of the requested content actually constitutes a change to the template, and that such modifications require additional money. This is what I call a "vendor hook".
In this situation, the client has little choice: either pay for additional development, or discard their investment. The ISV has a complete monopoly, and the client has little real power to determine the future direction of their own Web site.
Now, it should be pointed out again that the client was warned of these same issues when the volunteered Joomla site (probably already worth a few thousand dollars itself) was discarded. The client neglected the advice, failed to exercise its own due diligence, and got exactly the result one might have expected. They funded someone else's development effort, and now have neither the capacity to maintain the software product nor clear ownership of their design templates, which is to say, their own brand.
Summing it Up
Client contracts for Web Site, pays for Software Product
Under pretense of Web Design, Vendor develops Software Product
Vendor neglects to inform Client of potential Intellectual Property interests
Vendor effectively asserts copyright over the design, just because the templates are "part of the code"!
Client was ignorant of the comparative cost differences between deploying features using one-of custom code versus off-the-shelf prepackaged components, or of use of an open-source CMS versus home-brew platforms, despite clear warnings.
Questions of Ethics
Caveat Emptor. Despite the Client's inability to cope adequately, is it in any way ethical behavior for an ISV to fund a software project when the client believes they are paying for a Web site? Or to reserve the right to refuse modifications to the design templates when the design was commissioned and paid for by a client? As a professional, my view is that this is not even arguable, and the answer is no.
Further, I think it is questionable behavior to even take a client on such a bait-and-switch ride, using funds clearly intended for one purpose to achieve one's own goals, when the client is obviously ignorant of the alternatives and consequences of their choices. To my mind, the vendor used the ignorance of the client in a parasitic manner. Clarity of communication and helping the client to discern consequences of decisions, are what XP and Agile development are all about. Too often, truthfulness is not a value held by ISVs, even by those who would promote themselves as "Honest and Ethical" or -- dare I say it -- followers of Christ.
Another way to view this issue is in terms of standards of professionalism, or lack thereof. Suppose I feel unwell with pains in my back, and seek out two doctors. One doctor happens to be a back surgeon, who takes no history but suggests invasive back surgery. The other happens to be a generalist, who takes a history and suggests a referral to a podiatrist. In this case the generalist may lose the business but is acting in my best interest, whereas the surgeon is well-qualified for the work but is remiss in failing to adequately assess the proper treatment protocol. If the surgeon were to work on my back, it would clearly be unethical, even if I knew of other options. A doctor's profession obligation is to follow a protocol that presents the least risk and best opportunities for long-term outcomes, but that is true for any professional.
Never argue with a pig, it just frustrates you and annoys the pig.
I've decided the best thing to do at this point is back away slowly, and try to avoid being a party to what appears to be an inevitable conflict. Perhaps they can work it all out -- the ISV has shown itself adept at navigating social situations to its advantage -- but observations suggest a continued disconnect between what both parties say and what they do, contrary to what should be an ethical concern for mutual best interest.
The board asked for a quote to create a Web site with unspecified features. Despite all the effort that had gone into analyzing and developing the site, it became evident that the non-profit had neither fully understood their own Web strategy nor appreciated the value of the efforts already expended, voluntarily, to create the basis of the necessary Web site. Knowing that the decisions had already been made, I first wrote a somewhat incensed response and then softened the tone, but still felt it important to include a detail of the risks and support issues regarding the ways a site could be deployed. Being a resident of the area served by the non-profit I am genuinely concerned about their success, but must admit I was not too troubled about not getting their business. The ISV was given the business having done nothing at all for the non-profit.
All I had lost was a substantial investment of my time, which after all was said and done, was offered voluntarily anyway. Still, I learned to be more discerning about the character of the non-profits for whom I perform work. I also learned that it is possible for people to completely miss a value proposition even when it is sitting in their lap staring them in the face and knocking on their forehead. Clarity in communication is key, and we did not have the ear of the power brokers on the board.
The non-profit had lost in the transaction too, not just from the thousands of dollars in work it had discarded, but also in demonstrating an organizational inability to be forthright with its volunteer members. Impressions like this last and have consequences far beyond what might initially be obvious.
No Good Deed Ever Goes Unpunished
Recently I had a chance to speak with the non-profit about their Web site in conjunction with a separate promotional initiative. It turned out that the ISV had used the non-profit -- their client's -- money to write custom software. Without full realization of their agreement the non-profit had funded the development of a home-brew, custom, one-of software product. The software was a kind of bare-bones PHP based content management system, intended for use as a community portal. Indeed, it appeared to be much like a version 0.3 level of any number of popular open source CMS projects like Joomla or Drupal.
The software was similar to Joomla because it used the same low-level PHP MVC framework and template engine. Yet the code was home-brew, and it was missing virtually all of the critical features of the mature CMS projects which in my professional opinion are critical for promotional activities. On the other hand, the features they had implemented could have easily been deployed using minor adaptations to existing components.
The non-profit client had paid several thousand dollars to the ISV, considerably more than the quality of the Web site might suggest to a good designer. Simply put, developing new Intellectual Property (IP) is expensive. It is considerably more costly than integrating off-the-shelf components and focusing on a coherent branding and a usable design. It is simply silly to pay a mechanic to build a car when they are commonly available both new and used. In the client's case, the initial cost was only two or three times the reasonable cost of a decent site. The ISV knew what would be "good enough" to pass acceptance by un-knowledgeable users and succeeded in that respect, but neither the design nor the software were worth several thousand.
In speaking with the client, it became evident that the most fundamental question of ownership of the IP were not well understood. They were more or less unaware of the distinction between having a Web site developed for them, and of funding someone else's proprietary software product. The issue was raised when the ISV refused to replace the site Flash banners saying they were a part of the code, not the content. It is unclear that the developer has any intent of releasing the source code, allowing access to the database, or providing enhancements to the site. Ownership of the IP is now an issue.
Such behavior sullies the profession and has an appearance of being unethical on its face. Simple updates, like posting a PDF file, are not possible. The client thought they were getting the ability to update any content on the site, but the ISV's response is that posting some of the requested content actually constitutes a change to the template, and that such modifications require additional money. This is what I call a "vendor hook".
In this situation, the client has little choice: either pay for additional development, or discard their investment. The ISV has a complete monopoly, and the client has little real power to determine the future direction of their own Web site.
Now, it should be pointed out again that the client was warned of these same issues when the volunteered Joomla site (probably already worth a few thousand dollars itself) was discarded. The client neglected the advice, failed to exercise its own due diligence, and got exactly the result one might have expected. They funded someone else's development effort, and now have neither the capacity to maintain the software product nor clear ownership of their design templates, which is to say, their own brand.
Summing it Up
Client contracts for Web Site, pays for Software Product
Under pretense of Web Design, Vendor develops Software Product
Vendor neglects to inform Client of potential Intellectual Property interests
Vendor effectively asserts copyright over the design, just because the templates are "part of the code"!
Client was ignorant of the comparative cost differences between deploying features using one-of custom code versus off-the-shelf prepackaged components, or of use of an open-source CMS versus home-brew platforms, despite clear warnings.
Questions of Ethics
Caveat Emptor. Despite the Client's inability to cope adequately, is it in any way ethical behavior for an ISV to fund a software project when the client believes they are paying for a Web site? Or to reserve the right to refuse modifications to the design templates when the design was commissioned and paid for by a client? As a professional, my view is that this is not even arguable, and the answer is no.
Further, I think it is questionable behavior to even take a client on such a bait-and-switch ride, using funds clearly intended for one purpose to achieve one's own goals, when the client is obviously ignorant of the alternatives and consequences of their choices. To my mind, the vendor used the ignorance of the client in a parasitic manner. Clarity of communication and helping the client to discern consequences of decisions, are what XP and Agile development are all about. Too often, truthfulness is not a value held by ISVs, even by those who would promote themselves as "Honest and Ethical" or -- dare I say it -- followers of Christ.
Another way to view this issue is in terms of standards of professionalism, or lack thereof. Suppose I feel unwell with pains in my back, and seek out two doctors. One doctor happens to be a back surgeon, who takes no history but suggests invasive back surgery. The other happens to be a generalist, who takes a history and suggests a referral to a podiatrist. In this case the generalist may lose the business but is acting in my best interest, whereas the surgeon is well-qualified for the work but is remiss in failing to adequately assess the proper treatment protocol. If the surgeon were to work on my back, it would clearly be unethical, even if I knew of other options. A doctor's profession obligation is to follow a protocol that presents the least risk and best opportunities for long-term outcomes, but that is true for any professional.
Never argue with a pig, it just frustrates you and annoys the pig.
I've decided the best thing to do at this point is back away slowly, and try to avoid being a party to what appears to be an inevitable conflict. Perhaps they can work it all out -- the ISV has shown itself adept at navigating social situations to its advantage -- but observations suggest a continued disconnect between what both parties say and what they do, contrary to what should be an ethical concern for mutual best interest.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Google Sucks even More
I've been trying to figure out exactly WHY my personal note was displaced with a Google message about using the IPhone to access maps. So far, I haven't been able to reproduce it! Note: capriciousness is generally not considered a positive quality with regard to the behavior of software.
This is assuming that Google's mapping software is not buggy. Monkeying with it shows what happened: my printer was in landscape mode when the print preview first showed. Someone with the excellent judgment of a pot smoker must have decided it would be cool when in landscape mode to replace the note with a hint on how one could use an IPhone. But silently replacing the content of a user-generated page is uncool and not at all unobtrusive.
Here's a hint to software developers: MAKING DECISIONS FOR USERS IS ALMOST ALWAYS A STUPID THING TO DO. You only end up giving "Gilligan Help", the kind of help that screws up the scene more than if you had never entered the frame. We don't need this kind of help.
This is assuming that Google's mapping software is not buggy. Monkeying with it shows what happened: my printer was in landscape mode when the print preview first showed. Someone with the excellent judgment of a pot smoker must have decided it would be cool when in landscape mode to replace the note with a hint on how one could use an IPhone. But silently replacing the content of a user-generated page is uncool and not at all unobtrusive.
Here's a hint to software developers: MAKING DECISIONS FOR USERS IS ALMOST ALWAYS A STUPID THING TO DO. You only end up giving "Gilligan Help", the kind of help that screws up the scene more than if you had never entered the frame. We don't need this kind of help.
NC DOT Sucks
Related to the previous post, it would certainly have helped to have half-decent street signage. Driving across the area, we found that most of the intersections in Wendell and Zebulon lack proper signs, and those that exist are -- as often as not -- oriented opposite to the side from which we were entering the intersection. This I would have to guess is due to the professional incompetence of the NC DOT. After it became evident that we would have to rely heavily upon street signage to find the destination, we gave up and went home.
Google Maps: WTF ???
I've learned to despise Google Maps. Just now it cost me an evening of conversation and two hours of driving in vain.
A friend had invited me over for a cook-out. It was the first time we'd been to her house, so I looked up the address in Google maps and confirmed some of the streets with her. When I set up to print the map, Google provided a field labeled "Notes". Convenient. I inserted the friends' name and phone number, figuring if something was wrong with the map I could call. Off we went.
When we got close, I pulled out the map. Surprise surprise, it had omitted the landmarks. That's a scale issue. Well, no problem -- I'll pull out a road map. My wife informs me that for the n-th time, that she doesn't keep a map in her car. Nice. My truck has a GPS in it, but my truck is at home.
So I'll call. Wait: Google has replaced my note with a note about using Maps on my IPhone. #@$#@!#!!!! GOOGLE, I don't have an IPHone, and if you weren't going to print my #@$#@$@! note, you shouldn't have pretended with an entry field.
WTF Google?
A friend had invited me over for a cook-out. It was the first time we'd been to her house, so I looked up the address in Google maps and confirmed some of the streets with her. When I set up to print the map, Google provided a field labeled "Notes". Convenient. I inserted the friends' name and phone number, figuring if something was wrong with the map I could call. Off we went.
When we got close, I pulled out the map. Surprise surprise, it had omitted the landmarks. That's a scale issue. Well, no problem -- I'll pull out a road map. My wife informs me that for the n-th time, that she doesn't keep a map in her car. Nice. My truck has a GPS in it, but my truck is at home.
So I'll call. Wait: Google has replaced my note with a note about using Maps on my IPhone. #@$#@!#!!!! GOOGLE, I don't have an IPHone, and if you weren't going to print my #@$#@$@! note, you shouldn't have pretended with an entry field.
WTF Google?
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Google's account management sucks Part II
Turns out that signing up for Gmail displaces your primary Google account name with the new Gmail account name. This is not what I expected, and certainly didn't ask for it. Servicethatsucks@gmail.com was just set up to try out adding advertisements to the blog, not to be my primary identity on Google.
And I can't switch back to my original account name, at least not directly on My Account page. That kind of ticks me off, and if it were any other service I'd dump them just for that.
And I can't switch back to my original account name, at least not directly on My Account page. That kind of ticks me off, and if it were any other service I'd dump them just for that.
Google's account management sucks
At one time, I played with putting Google AdSense on my company site. I found out quickly that it often wasn't a straightforward process to get things enabled under Google, but hey, they were new, and one can be forgiven for clunkyness in start-up services.
Now Google is the giant, not the new kid on the block. Yet their customer interfaces and procedures barely appear to have been changed. One apparent process design principle that has been a hallmark of their account management is that the user cannot back-out of a failed process, or a set-up that went awry, without waiting for human approvals.
Once you've started using a name or email on a Google service, it is as if it is a barbed hook: you cannot pull it out. Cancel buttons are missing. Roll-up and Confirmation screens are missing. "Terminate My Account" is no where to be found. Apparently once you've used an identity in Google services, Google is committed to it forever even if the process hasn't created any auditable transactions. I was going to set up AdSense for this blog, only to find out that the experimentation I did years ago under a now-defunct email, is still out there under my name, and according to Google policy only one account is allowed per person. At the same time, I also have a Google account unrelated to the AdSense junk. So I can try to link up the accounts or sign-up for a prohibited new account under servicethatsucks@gmail.com, but the whole point is this: the whole process is a mystery and Google's policy of "no undo" when initially setting up is service that sucks.
Now Google is the giant, not the new kid on the block. Yet their customer interfaces and procedures barely appear to have been changed. One apparent process design principle that has been a hallmark of their account management is that the user cannot back-out of a failed process, or a set-up that went awry, without waiting for human approvals.
Once you've started using a name or email on a Google service, it is as if it is a barbed hook: you cannot pull it out. Cancel buttons are missing. Roll-up and Confirmation screens are missing. "Terminate My Account" is no where to be found. Apparently once you've used an identity in Google services, Google is committed to it forever even if the process hasn't created any auditable transactions. I was going to set up AdSense for this blog, only to find out that the experimentation I did years ago under a now-defunct email, is still out there under my name, and according to Google policy only one account is allowed per person. At the same time, I also have a Google account unrelated to the AdSense junk. So I can try to link up the accounts or sign-up for a prohibited new account under servicethatsucks@gmail.com, but the whole point is this: the whole process is a mystery and Google's policy of "no undo" when initially setting up is service that sucks.
Time to make the Donuts ???
I like the people at Daylight Donuts here in Rolesville. It is a small town, and you know they are genuinely interested in the community. Still, it is disappointing to see the place (1) out of donuts by the middle of the morning and (2) closed at odd hours.
On the second point, they have been closed on Mondays (do people really buy fewer donuts on first day of the work week?) but as often as not I go to a donut shop to drink good coffee, meet with clients, and do work over Wi-Fi. But when they are closed at random times I cannot use them for that purpose. In point of fact I must plan to avoid them when working with clients: it would be too damaging to show up and find them closed.
This brings up a third point, which is that there aren't any really good coffee shops in Rolesville. Even the local McD's product often tastes burned like someone left the pot on overnight. I'm not holding out hope for the new drive log cabin, whenever that gets built, since it will have no place to sit. Rolesville is where I live, and I don't want the community turned into a drive-through. That's why I hope the donut shop succeeds despite its failings.
On the second point, they have been closed on Mondays (do people really buy fewer donuts on first day of the work week?) but as often as not I go to a donut shop to drink good coffee, meet with clients, and do work over Wi-Fi. But when they are closed at random times I cannot use them for that purpose. In point of fact I must plan to avoid them when working with clients: it would be too damaging to show up and find them closed.
This brings up a third point, which is that there aren't any really good coffee shops in Rolesville. Even the local McD's product often tastes burned like someone left the pot on overnight. I'm not holding out hope for the new drive log cabin, whenever that gets built, since it will have no place to sit. Rolesville is where I live, and I don't want the community turned into a drive-through. That's why I hope the donut shop succeeds despite its failings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)