@fiatlux I am not saying that one should deliberately be sloppy or unclear, but there is a serious missunderstanding that gramatical correctness implies that the thought conveyed is correct. The most blatent lies are padded in verbal eloquense. That comments on linguistics are used as arguments I find so provocative. I too struggle with the written word, often retyping because in an industry with professional proofreaders one is very exposed as the whole office will gather round and snigger if your letters are not in the right order. I took my refuge from the critizizm of those language teachers in art, and later found I had a nack for technical issues. Did that make me a better speller? No. Does it still hurt when language is used as an argument for intelegence?
I do not have demands on a doctor, to be able to spell (though from what I hear medical staff is bogged down with too much paper work). I know many people who can spell but are totally lost in technical areas. I know many people who struggle with language (to the extent they would never actually post on a forum) who are technical experts. I am not saying linguistic limitation is something that will enhance techical skill.
But letts go back to what the thread is about. Training. And here is the key. To know how something works is not the same thing as to train someone how to use it. There is a need for a group of people who can train. CompTia did have a programme called CTT+, where the curriculum did just that, it taught technical people how to communicate their expertise.
This is where I think the jist of this thread is. Where it has been expressed that for the person who knows what he wants the "trainer" or is it the "technical expert" will give him that information. Now that is basically saying "if you know what you want to know we'll tell you". That is not training!
At the time of installation a training needs assesment could be made, and an appropriate curriculum designed. But there is no such curriculum. It could be a very modular course, where one would be able to go back to it over time and grow in knowledge studying what is relevant, much like an online learning centre. X-rite did this with some very good online courses when you bought a spectrophotometer.
And this is why the user forums are so useful. The user, is a person just like yourself. They feel your pain. They are not trying to sell you anything, nor do they have to pretend something that doesn't work is good, because they sold it to you.
KM seems to be listening in this forum, but I myself have been to a site where a client has had a KM but the technician did not have any understanding of colour management, and so had left that client with an unsatisfactory installation. Among the disks they had left were unopened calibration software and charts. All paid for, because thay were necessary in the package to get the desired results... but there was not the know how to implement it (I did not verify the linguistic skills of the technical expert, so I am missing the data to see if he was competent ;P ). Please don't think I am pointing fingers at any particular vendor. It is a problem as expressed in this post, of training not reaching the end user so that an investment will attain its maximum potential, and a bafflement that the manufacturers do not rank higher the value of offering adequate training to those users.
(please don't judge me on account of spelling or grammar)
