| |||||||||||||
"all those nassssty fields""all those nassssty fields"Posted Aug 21, 2006 0:59 UTC (Mon) by Baylink (subscriber, #755)Parent article: Google's project hosting service
> As for the architecture of the issue tracker, Google disregarded the idea of a heavily structured database and replaced it with a free-form system based on Google's search technology.
Oh, for *phuque's* sake.
I'm sorry people, but those fields are there *so us poor slobs who have to fix things* know what we're dealing with. They're there to *force* the reporter to provide enough information to make it possible to *actually fix their problem*: if you don't fill them in, then we're just going to have to ask you all those questions anyway.
As someone who designs this sort of thing (and then has end users dumb it down to the point of uselessness), this sort of viewpoint just drives me right straight up a tree. People applauding it gives me hives.
Sure, make it easier to search. But don't take out the information that will make *finding* anything possible.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||