outsouring QA job to customers phenomenon.

[embryo2]

I'm sorry, but I don't find a website that looks fancy, but is inefficient to use, "fun".

But somebody do find. If a person hasn't a clue about the overall web-site interaction procedure then it's absolutely possible to attract such user by the fancy design. And many people really have no clue about such simple things like ticket ordering and online purchases. They expect some guide to lead them along the way to the exit. And if the guide asks some stupid questions they just do not pay attention to the stupidity because they think the guide was written by some smart programmers who write things like Google or Facebook. They think it's their fault and not an inefficiency of the dumb site. For them to understand the stupidity it's required to understand some background about web applications and web development. It's like if you are guided through a process of wheat cultivation. Can you disagree with an agriculturist? Do you know why in one place should be more fertilizers while in another less? The sites are similar - not many people know why in one place should be more steps to buy something while in another it is possible to make purchase in a bit different way. And even if they see the difference then again the task of searching for another solution is also time consuming ant often it consumes much more time than filling more fields on a site's page. In long run the time consuming way of searching for new tools can be efficient and in the end the total time spent will be less than in case of permanent use of a stupid site. But people are too lazy to look so far. And fancy distractions are too attractive for them. So, they prefer to spend their time using an inefficient web site.

[ggodw000]

I run into the same situation at work over and over, where someone will decide to use some library or tool, without any clue how to use it properly, and will wind up using it wrong, and then complain about how the thing they chose to use is garbage, and they will never use it again.

And, of course, there are other people who come up with the most complex way to solve even simple tasks, and then brag about how clever they are. Then another guy comes along and tries to modify the same code, can't figure out how it works, so they write all new code, from scratch.

This is a perpetual search of balance. On one hand someone who writes API should take care of the fact there will be consumer of his API therefore must think in terms of someone (consumer or customer) who has no clue of his API-s internal workings. It should be treated as blackbox, with I/O-s, possible exit values on what conditions, limitations, requirements clearly specified. Otherwise, he is only thinking inside his head and writing for himself. In fact, if he revisits back in few months, he would have to "re-learn" the code. Happened to me few times in the past which was pretty painful, now I always strive at best to make sure it is documented.

On the other hand, there are so many folks who just can't read and understand and asking around like headless chicken when the all the information is right below their chin.

There are one or two easy ways to solve a problem, and a hundred complex ways. I don't understand why people always choose the most complex way, and then, after 2 years, the same people complain that the system is old, and slow, and impossible to maintain.

There are too many people who does it. Making simple problem hugely complicated so that they can get some credit for being smart and sophisticated person. And when they preferably do it in front of audience who has no idea of the area under discussion keep the true experts at bay as much as possible in order to avoid being challenged. Obviously it will not count the ones who is really working on the sophisticated stuff.

[onlyonemac]

I'm sorry, but I don't find a website that looks fancy, but is inefficient to use, "fun".

But somebody do find. If a person hasn't a clue about the overall web-site interaction procedure then it's absolutely possible to attract such user by the fancy design. [...] But people are too lazy to look so far. And fancy distractions are too attractive for them. So, they prefer to spend their time using an inefficient web site.

And that is the manner in which people are stupid. To be attracted by a fancy design to the point that they are unwilling to spend the time to find something more efficient is stupid.