Re: Redundancy...

[Karen_Mayer -dot- TOUCH_TECHNOLOGY -at- NOTES -dot- COMPUSERVE -dot- COM]

  For most business-type software (word processors, database managers,
  spreadsheets, etc.), the users are only using it to get a job done. They
  likely could care less *how* it works or that you can do all these nifty
  things -- UNLESS those things help the users do their jobs. Sure, I love
  FrameMaker, but only because it helps me do my job better, not because
  it's *fun*. If I wanted fun, I'd run Doom or something!

  The task-oriented approach is not only a good idea from a marketing
  viewpoint. It's good from an engineering viewpoint, too. If the product
  design (or documentation) gets in the way of me doing my job, I won't be
  too happy about using it and I'll look for something better. (Then the
  Marketing Dept will be REALLY concerned!)

  --------------------  ORIGINAL MESSAGE TEXT  --------------------


  From a marketing viewpoint, you want users to think the software enables
  them to do things. That way, the user takes credit for the achievement
  for which he or she might receive additional corporate favors such as
  raises and promotions. "Our product is used to do" suggests that to us
  much more than "Our product does".

FWIW, since when was the Marketing Dept concerned about anyone actually
*using* the product after it has been bought and paid for? <G>

  --------------------  END OF ORIGINAL MESSAGE  --------------------