RE: [fw-wiz] Opinion: Worst interface ever.
From: Eugene Kuznetsov (eugene_at_datapower.com)
To: "'Paul D. Robertson'" <email@example.com> Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 11:02:12 -0400
> One of my coworkers had the same issue, so I'm guessing that
> it's not all
> that intuitive where that turn was.
I wasn't insisting it's intuitive, but it's probably intuitive for some
subset of users. In the end, most vendors don't purposefully make their
> I'm really starting to dislike the "interface can't run locally on the
> device" stuff when coupled with "won't log on the device."
Yeah, I've never understood the "requiremes management server or thick
client to be useful" approach.
> > So take this as a vendor perspective: it's not easy,
> especially since
> > customer requirements are increasingly diverging. More
> features --> more
> > complexity.
> Hey, I didn't ask for more features, someone's marketing
> department did!
No, probably some other set of users did (just not the same kind of user as
you). ... Or maybe a competitor came out with a bunch of new features, got a
good review in ___ Magazine, and so they had to follow.
> I'm also going to add a new vendor test to my criteria- if I can't get
> read-only access to the support site without a login, that
> vendor's off my
You know why vendors don't do this? It's not because they are evil. It's
because the moment you put something on your website, your dozen competitors
immediately download and copy it, down to the diagram colors. Of course,
once they do -- and everyone has the same features, at least in the UI --
your next release has to add new ones to differentiate! Which confuses the
poor user, who then wants to have unauthenticated access to all the support
\\ Eugene Kuznetsov, Chairman & CTO : firstname.lastname@example.org
\\ DataPower Technology, Inc. : Web Services security
\\ http://www.datapower.com : XML-aware networks
firewall-wizards mailing list