Making it confusing for the user is easy. Making it simple and intuitive is a lot harder and the complexity of the structure is often inversely proportional to how easy it is for the user. (Read "The Inmates Are Running the Asylum" by Alan Cooper. Really, it's about development.)
The terrible part of this is that the customer likely to hate it when it's done (and very possibly angry at you, by extension). They are obviously ignorant of why it's relational in the first place, and have not thought through the implications of their folly. Indeed, they are likely not trained/experienced enough to think along those lines. (I am not saying they are stupid, just ignorant of database architecture and its relationship to user interface.)
Alan Weiss says to fire 15% of your clientele every year. Sounds like you've got your first really good candidate for that category.
It's easy for me to say I'd walk.
You're the one who has to decide, though.
j.
On Apr 19, 2011, at 4:23 PM, Richard S. Russell wrote:
> A client asked me for advice on how to export data from a modest-sized file of <20,000 people. As we discussed what he wanted and why, he said he was looking for something he could upload to an on-line contact management system (CMS) that would replace his current FMP system. I thot this was kind of sad but doable. Then he got to the ugly bit. He's looking for flat-file output, because the people he'll have working on data entry in the future are too unsophisticated and ephemeral to deal with the complexities of relationality.
>
> Let me spare you the effort you're about to invest in telling me what a terrible, terrible idea this is. I doubt that you could come up with anything I haven't already tried on him, to no avail. It's going to happen, with or without my help.
>
> I explained that FileMaker Pro was kind of like a lobster trap. It's easy to get in (IE, move from a flat-file system to a relational one), because FMP has all sorts of tools to make it happen; but it's hard to get out (IE, move from relational to flat-file). I was kind of stumped right off the top of my head trying to figure out how I'd convert a portal of, say, 20 financial contributions, each with 8 fields (like amount, date, purpose, etc.) to 160 spreadsheet-style columns.
>
> Has anyone else faced this kind of situation? Any advice (beyond the obvious "Don't do it!")?
>
>
> = = = = = =
> Richard S. Russell, a Bright (http://the-brights.net)
> 2642 Kendall Av. #2, Madison WI 53705-3736
> 608+233-5640 • [log in to unmask]
> http://richardsrussell.livejournal.com/
>
> = = = = = =
> No sense in being pessimistic. It won't work anyway.
--
Jonathan Fletcher
FileMaker 9 & 10 Certified Developer
Fletcher Data Consulting
[log in to unmask]
http://www.fletcherdata.com
502-509-7137
Kentuckiana's FileMaker Users Group
Next meeting: April 26, 12:00 pm to 3:00-ish
Listserv signup: http://fmpug.com/mailman/listinfo/louisville_fmpug.com
Blog: http://www.kyfmp.com
|
