Troubleshooting FoolQuest.com

Regrettably, persistent abuse and occasional genuine confusion has mandated inception of an adequate protocol for fielding response such as is neither inquiry into nor participation in the different purposes and functions of this website, nor even reaction to any varied content herein, either.

There is an implicit social convention that when angry expectations, objections and demands are persistently not explained, one ought to cease prying and to comply, as inconspicuously and unobtrusively as possible simply in order to get along. But just such brutally mindless conformism flies in the face both of art and reason, demanding question if not resistance to demands that make no clear sense.

On the one hand, there is the question of priorities. After all, what is the big deal? Hell if I know! On the other hand, there would be a monumental volume of material here on FoolQuest.com to scrap completely and rework, without me ever understanding why, particularly, if I where to meet the expectations of some people who seem to believe, routinely and with passionate agrievance, that I owe them something which mustn't be spoken of, and who still probably wouldn't appreciate my work, substance and style, no matter what until it was rendered vastly homogeneous with their own, and not even then.

What is most crucially needed are reports pursuant to beta testing of the Online communities, actual experience with the different site interactions as explicitly specified.

The problem is often of agenda at cross-purpose, astonishingly enough, even as regards the discussion of maintenance technicality, design and navigation. The first step must be to disentangle whatever agenda at cross-purpose.

Anyone who is not so much experiencing technical problems or real navigational difficulties, but rather the more finds themselves gripped by passionate feelings in regards to aspects of design or configuration, should gain that self understanding and so represent themselves.

Indeed, anyone who will begin, nevertheless, by giving me the practical feedback that I actually request, will receive all of my due gratitude for their exercise of lucid self-mastery.

Then if discussion of whatever aspects of design or configuration still demand discourse, let us begin with a meta-discussion of how such issues are best approached. Because simply jumping ahead to redesign demands according to whatever preference, does not actually communicate any reasoned problem definition for relevant solution finding in context.

1) First and foremost, response to content and then response to presentation only in context thereof. Content here means the subject matter of any written work, particularly any substantive or meaningful part or aspect thereof. This first requires clear location, specification and identification of any texts that one might desire to actually read much, even for the purpose of attacking them if nothing else. Otherwise there will be little point. In other words, first find anything of interest, and then, in any comment, cite the specific URLs (Web addresses) and texts for context. And no, I can't just figure out which page(s) and section(s) anyone might be responding to! There are, after all, over two hundred pages and counting...

Traditional print publications have long been known to frequently receive scathing reader complaints that fail to at all even specify which article to which the reader takes such virulent exception! But such are not of much help. And the same is no less true Online.

Anyone who finds this website frustrating may actually seek trollish revenge by submitting just such an utterly unhelpful response! Though, others are clearly well meaning. nevertheless, real useful good will must entail the effort to be clear and specific enough for follow up.

2) In particular, user stories in detail regarding any concerted attempt at interactions as specified and provided for on this site. (And not webdesign assessment per se, but trouble reports even as regards navigation/interface issues and as applicable.) This first requires location and identification of any particular interaction(s) in which one might sustain any interest and effort, even to find fault meaningfully. Anything less may tend to be unhelpful.

Reports may either detail the results of interaction, lucidity or confusion, or else only at all explain hesitation, reluctance and why interaction was declined.

And, either way, such reports may be more cursory or more detailed and better explanatory. The results of interaction test function and ease of use, while willingness to interact in the first place, will be either a question of marketing appeal or else demand at all to begin with.

Incomprehension only breeds further incomprehension unless one dissects, deconstructs, picks the work apart to expose whatever ambiguity. That will be central to any cogent critique. Particularly, for example, when it is important to discover why, as often happens, anything actually staring the user right in the face nevertheless goes unseen. What is obvious to one, may remain obscure and obtuse to another. Only precision and persistence will ever mitigate the negotiation of reciprocal incomprehension, so that problems may be corrected.

And, for another example, expressions of how an interface made one feel remain somewhat puzzling as to whatever specific problems encountered and by which steps in whatever path or process. The proverbial blind men, however moved or impressed, need to know that they are examining the same part of the metaphorical elephant!

Non usage reports should be clearly labeled as such, so that an appropriate non response protocol can be developed.

(And please do not take offense at the above unless, to paraphrase Garfield, hey! -you resemble that remark!)

It should be a conversation. I have no use for fanatic flamers who resent backtalk and refuse to really explain themselves. I have discovered that if they won't respond to content at all from the beginning, then they won't no matter what extensive changes are implemented in graphics motif or textual presentation.

It is far more congenial and rewarding to work with others who are both more lucid and more appreciative. Only those who show active interest at all deserve any customization efforts. Otherwise, if you absolutely must waste my time, please pay me in advance!

I am simply not interested in being dictated to as to what arbitrarily canonical "mistakes" are "committed" in my Webdesign, or what loony and dogmatic "rules" are "violated". I am not interested in the slightest in undertaking complete overhaul according to narrow, condescending and pin-headed design philosophies I do not embrace primarily for reasons of context. But rather, at least trying to correct or improve as they arise, even however Ad Hoc, any real and specific difficulties experienced in actual use or at least the good faith attempt. Such is the limit of my responsibility in the matter.

Perhaps the Usability Movement needs to make it's usability reports more relevant and usable to open systems, instead of cultivating arbitrary closed systems and ways of doing things! Their fastidiously objective investigation of user interaction and expectations, tends to disregard purpose and utility.

After all, a flaw is not inherent to discrepancy with arbitrary rules, but in however unsatisfactory functionality. Hence, improvement will not be sought by conformity to such arbitrary rules, but by problem definition, solution finding and implementation. And why reinvent the proverbial wheel? Because, as sometimes turns out, the standard size in the metaphorical catalogue doesn't fit. Process has, once again, eclipsed relevant purpose.

First of all, always quote/excerpt emails received in any response thereto, for context. Never simply force the recipient to struggle to remember or guess what answer out of the blue correlates to what other previous correspondence, but provide adequate reference. And, similarly, in answering privately any public post anywhere on the Web, for context, the URL (Web address typically beginning with "http://") of the specific post eliciting such response in the first place, must be included, please! This can be copied and pasted from the address dialogue of your browser.

And, likewise, in responding to any WebPage(s), give the URL(s) of the page(s) in question.

Without such clear indication, there is really no way to guess what pages or posts whatever comments pertain to, and thus the feedback is rendered unintelligible for want of crucial metadata!

In case of technical problems, please write a clear trouble report, describing in detail the nature of your problem. The more information that you provide, the better and faster your problem can be resolved. Give the URL(s) (Web addresses typically beginning with "http://") of the page(s) where whatever problems have been encountered, explain what you where trying to do or find and why, explain what the problem is/was, and then give a step by step explanation of how the problem came about. Walk me through it!

Did this only occur only once, or is the problem repeated and persistent? As we all know full well how glitches are random and systems are temperamental, please just try again at least once. What happens when you try it again?

And please be ready to answer in detail any follow up questions in order to assist in the diagnosis of any problems.

Thanks to the calling of my attention of these specific issues in a clear and specific manner!

Some experts advise that one must actually disregard user reports on interface usability entirely, and instead, literally stand over their shoulders to watch the users and observe whatever the problem really turns out to be.

Alas, however, such measures are seldom feasible Online. That is why, instead, the user must be prevailed upon to observe and record their own interactions with the interface, to make notes as they interact Online, step by step, when a problem arises.

This is why the previous trouble report procedural instructions as for technical problems apply much the same to site navigation and user interface design issues and problems, even if there are actually no technical problems as such.

It's not about knowing everything, just lucid specificity as to exactly whatever may not clear, so that usability can be addressed and improved.

In case of site navigation and user interface design issues and problems, please write a clear trouble report, describing in detail the nature of your problem. The more information that you provide, the better and faster the interface and/or navigation can be corrected or reworked as needed. Give the URL(s) (Web addresses typically beginning with "http://") of the pages(s) where whatever problems have been encountered, the steps in whatever path or process thereto, what you where trying to do, reach or find, and give a step by step explanation of how the problem arose, how and why there has been any difficulty encountered or confusion experienced, and whatever in specific may be perceived as unclear, confusing, cumbersome or difficult therein. Walk me through it! (Yes, really, no kidding.)

Likewise, assessment of any modification will require renewed attempt there after. So, please be ready to answer in detail any follow up questions in order to assist in any redesign or modification.

Even failure requires the attempt. And beta testing is appreciated. The decision to participate or not lies with the individual. Usability, as such, remains entirely a function of usage. And usage is the occurrence of usage, which by definition does not include non usage which is a non occurrence.

This improvement made possible by gleaning a clear and specific user trouble report.

Even morally outraged demands for the emplacement of content advisory also fall under the heading of navigation and interface, and so much the same procedures will be required, as applicable. There are many pages of content on this site, over two hundred and counting, and therefore the chances go against simply guessing right which one may have become object of concern or offence for whatever conceivable reason! And so, specific URLs (Web addresses typically beginning with "http://") of whatever content and user path of access thereto (because content warning must appear before entry into whatever content they pertain) not to mention lucid expression of whatever specific objection or concern remain indispensable for an intelligible report facilitating sensible discourse enabling voluntary placement of content warnings however and if ever as and should the webmaster see fit.

Therefore it will be ludicrous and unreasonable to sulk in resentment over the above or similar statement, the preconditions made being intrinsic, inextricable and not arbitrary.

Regrettably, Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox compliance will not be dealt with until if ever a qualified volunteer comes forward. The endless snarl of MS FrontPage generated and then further kludged spaghetti code on this site is not in any way warranted for any other browsing tools except a Internet Explorer on a PC with a broadband connection! Blame not only Microsoft, but more generally technogeeks who just will not relate to ordinary end users. (To share in a vision of a better authorship technology for all, click here.)