Category: Author: Daniel Lindner

Take your programming course with a grain of salt, please

If you are cursed with silly rules in your programming course, we offer you some word of encouragement to find a mentor and keep your mental sanity and programming habits.

Lately, we had a talk with one of our former interns who now happens to study informatics at university. He presented some code he had written for his programming course and we did a team code review. The review itself was a lot of fun and sparked quite a few discussions. At one point, we assessed the different implementation styles of a method, changing the rather complex single return code into an early return method. Our former intern (now student) listened to the solution and stated: “I am not allowed to do that.”

There was a sudden silence, as everyone tried to comprehend what that means.

The student explained: “my course instructor prefers the single return approach over the early return style”. Well, that’s one thing, we can handle different opinions. “And”, he continued, “he announced there will be a painful deduction of points if we don’t comply to this style.” When the course tried to discuss this point, the explanation given was: “the single return style is superior because the other style is frowned upon.”

We couldn’t believe it. But, as it turns out, there are many rules like the one above in this programming course. And nearly every rule is highly debatable if not plain wrong (in our perception).

There is no problem with the presentation of certain rules in a beginner’s programming course. Novices need clear and precise rules to learn, according to the Dreyfus Model of Skill Acquisition. The concept just doesn’t work for students that aren’t on the Novices level anymore. These students are explicitely forbidden to create more advanced solutions. They are discouraged to look into different programming styles because it will only harm their grades.

We can think of a possible explanation for this scenario: The assignments have to be evaluated by the course instructors. It takes a lot of hard work (and time) to evaluate hundreds of totally different solutions for the same problem. If the solutions are mostly similar in style and concepts, the evaluation is a lot easier and can be done without full understanding of the code.

This is a rather poor explanation. It says “don’t be too advanced in your field of study or you will be too troublesome to attend to”. This is essentially an anesthetization by decree. But the real problem arises when you realize that there won’t be any continuative programming courses. They will never teach you all the more advanced concepts or rectify the silly rules that should get you along as a beginner. After you’ve successfully mastered this course, the studying focusses on the more academic topics of our field. The next possibility to develop your programming skills in a professional setting is your first software development job.

We don’t have a practical solution to this problem. One obvious solution would be to have more instructors evaluate less assignment solutions in the same time, enabling them to dive deeper in the code and give better personalized feedback. This scenario lacks at least enough capable instructors. The reality shows that Novices level students (in the sense of the Dreyfus Model) are often taught by Advanced Beginner level instructors (called a “tutor”).

But we have a word of encouragement for all you students out there, feeling dumbed down by your instructors: It’s not your fault! Take your programming course rules with a (big) grain of salt and talk to other developers. If you don’t know anybody already in the industry, try to make contact with some fellow open source developer on the web. It’s really just the advice “Find a Mentor” from the book Apprenticeship Patterns (highly recommended for aspiring software developers) applied in real life.

Because if you don’t actively unlearn all these arbitrary rules or at least put them into perspective, you’ll start your professional developer career with the burden of some really antic code quirks.

Good luck and tell us your story, if you want.

Separate Master Data and Variable Data

If you come across an accumulation of data fields, you might want to split them into master data and variable data. This could at least help when dealing with storage issues.

In the design of data structures or objects, there are two different kinds of data, namely “Master Data” (german: Stammdaten) and “Variable Data” (german: Bewegungsdaten). The first kind, master data, are data fields that will change seldom over time and can sometimes be used to “identify” an object. The second kind are data fields that capture the current value of an object’s aspect, but are expected to change in the future. If you can categorize your data fields in this manner, think about separating them into different objects.

Let me make an actual example. An application we develop has a central instance (the “center”) that distributes situational data to several operation desks, powered by client applications, named the “clients”. Each client instance is registered in the center to enable the supervision and administration of clients. The data for each client is stored in a ClientInformation object that is mapped to a database relation. Let’s have a look at some of the data fields of ClientInformation:

  • int internalIdentifier – the database primary key for the record
  • String type – some type of the client application
  • String instanceName – the given readable denotation of the operation desk
  • String version – the currently installed version of the client application
  • Date connectionDate – the last time this client application established a connection
  • Date lastActionDate – the last time this client application issued an action command (“was active”)

We can start all kinds of (justified) discussion about primitive obsession, too much information at one place and so on, but for this blog entry, only the categorization in master data and variable data is of interest. My opinion on the example is that the first three data fields (internalIdentifier, type and instanceName) are definitely in the master data category. The last two data fields are clearly variable data, while the version field is something in between. My guts tell me to categorize the version as master data, because it won’t change on a daily schedule.

When separating the two categories of data, the ClientInformation object may turn into a reference holder object only. In this case, the ClientInformation holds two references, one to a new ClientMasterData object (holding internalIdentifier, type, instanceName and version) and another one to a new ClientVariableData object (holding connectionDate and lastActionDate).

A less radical modification would be to let the master data remain in the ClientInformation object and only extract the variable data into a new ClientConnectionData object. If a client connects, only the referenced ClientConnectionData object has to change.

If you separate your master data from the variable data, you can very easily concentrate on the variable data for performance optimizations. This is where the data changes will happen and a tuned storage strategy will pay off. The master data should be designed more carefully concerning the type information, so if we really start the discussion about primitive obsession, I would first tend to the master data fields and argue that the type shouldn’t be a String but an Enum and the version should be a more sophisticated Version type. This could be modelled even with a slow object/relational mapper because the data is only written/read once.

The next time you come across one of your data model objects that contain more than two data fields, have a look at their categorization in master and variable data. Perhaps you can see a good reason to split the object.

Depth-first programmers

Depth-first programmers are always busy creating horribly complicated solutions that are somehow off the mark. Here’s why and what to do against it.

Just as there are at least two fundamentally different approaches for searching, namely depth-first and breadth-first search, there are also different types of programmers. The depth-first programmer is a dangerous type, as he is prone to yak shaving and reinvention of the wheel.

The depth-first programmer

Let me try to define the term of a “depth-first programmer” by a little (true) story. A novice java programmer should make some changes to an existing code. To secure his work, he should and wanted to write unit tests in JUnit. He started the work and soon enough, first results could be seen. But when he started to write his tests, the progress notifications stopped. The programmer worked frantically for hours and then days to write what appeared to be some simple data-driven tests.

Finally, the novice java programmer reported success and showed his results. He wrote his tests and “had to extend JUnit a bit to do it right”. Wait, what? Well, in JUnit, the test methods cannot have parameters, but the programmer’s tests needed to be parametrized. So he replaced the part of JUnit that calls the test methods by reflection with an “improved” algorithm that could also inject parameters. His implementation relied on obscure data structures that provided the actual parameter values and only really worked for his needs. The whole mess was nearly intangible, a big bloat and needed most of the development time for the unit tests.

And it was totally unnecessary once you learn about “Parameterized” JUnit4 tests or build light-weight data drivers instead of changing the signature of the test method itself. But this programmer dove deep into JUnit to adjust the framework itself to his needs. When asked about it, he stated that “he needed to pass the parameters somehow”. That’s right, but he choose the most expensive way to do so.

He exhibited the general behaviour of a depth-first programmer: whenever you face a problem, take the first possible solution to a problem you can come up with and work on it without evaluation against other possibilities. And continue on the path without looking back, no matter how long it takes.

Stuck in activism

The problem with this approach should be common sense. The obvious option isn’t always the best or even a good one. You have to evaluate the different possible solutions by their advantages and drawbacks. A less obvious solution might be far better in every aspect but obviousness. Another problem with this approach is the absence of internal warning signs.

Getting stuck is an internal warning sign every programmer understands. You’ve worked your way in a certain direction and suddenly, you cannot advance further. Something blocks your anticipated way of solving the problem and you cannot think of an acceptable way past it. A depth-first programmer never gets stuck this way. No matter how expensive, he will pursue the first thing that brings him closer to the target. A depth-first programmer always churns out code at full speed. Most of it isn’t needed on second thought and can be plain harmful when left in the project. The depth-first programmer will always report progress even when he needs days for a task of minutes. He is stuck in activism.

Progress without guidance

This isn’t a rant about incompetent programmers. Every good programmer knows the situation when you suddenly realize that you’re shaving a yak when all you wanted to do is to add a feature to the code base. This is your self-guidance system regaining consciousness after a period of auto-piloting in depth-first mode. Every programmer behaves depth-first sometimes.

This can be explained with the Dreyfus Model of Skill Acquisition. On the first stage, called “Beginner”, you are simply not capable of proper self-evaluation. You cannot distinguish between good and not so good approaches beforehands or even afterwards. Your expertise in the narrow field of the problem at hand isn’t broad enough to recognize an error even when you are working on the error yourself for prolonged times.

In the Dreyfus Model, a beginner needs external guidance. Somebody with more experience has to point out errors for you and formulate alternatives as clearly and specific as possible. Without external guidance, a beginner will become a depth-first programmer. We’ve all been there.

 Be a guide

The real failure in the story above was done by me. Instead of interacting with the novice java programmer after a few hours when I thought he should be done by now, I let him “advance”. I could have avoided the resulting mess by providing guidance and a few alternate solutions for the immediate problem. I would give an overview of the problem’s context and some hints about the general direction this task should be solved.

Every depth-first programmer works in a suboptimal environment. The programmer tries his best, it’s really the environment that could do better.

So, the next time you see somebody working frantically on a problem that should be rather easy to solve, lend him a hand. Be gentle and empathic about his attempt and work with proposals, not with instructions. Perhaps you’ve spared yourself a mess like an unnecessarily extended JUnit library and the depth-first programmer the frustration when his hard work of several days is silently discarded.

A review of the year 2011 at Softwareschneiderei

This is a review of the year 2011 for the Softwareschneiderei, a software development company from Karlsruhe, Germany.

The current year 2011 is coming to an end. This is the traditional time to pause and reflect on what has happened. This blogpost tries to sum up our year in software development at Softwareschneiderei. It was an interesting, entertaining and successful year for us, that’s for sure.

The official parts

Our developer blog was alive throughout the hardest times of the year, when everyone was under full project load. Every week, one of our developer shares a little posting with the world. The blog is still managed by token only. Looking at the visitor statistics, we fully appreciate your attention. The first blog post of this year looked at the remainder of a failed project. “A tale of scrap metal code” was a detailed vivisection in three parts. Over the course of the year, we wrote about bogus error messages, Groovy, Grails, GORM and some confessions about coding style and multithreading. If you have the time, spend a few minutes to browse our blog post archive for this year.

Our “official” company blog, written in german language, had no activity this year. We can certainly do better than this and take it on the list for 2012.

The company homepage, written in german language, had continuous updates and extensions this year. We coupled the “Open Source Love Day” (OSLD) with our “Homepage Comittee”, when every employee has to improve the homepage in some aspects and present the change to the “comittee”. Unfortunately, this somehow lead to fewer OSLDs this year.

The ongoing Dev Brunch sessions thinned out a bit in the second half of the year. This was a concession to the ever-growing workload. We strive to establish a tighter schedule with accompanying blog posts in the next year.

The internal parts

We were under heavy development load this year. This isn’t a bad thing, but impacts the internal communication and team building process. We tried to cope a bit by restructuring the Open Source Love Day to a “Team Day”, when the whole team meets and works on various internal or hobby projects. Some of these days were spend on Code Camps and other training events. This means less love for the open source community, but crucial together time for us.

We picked up several “new” programming languages this year. You can tell by the blog posts that we worked with Python, Ruby, Flex/ActionScript and even VisualBasic on real projects. The VisualBasic experience was a little epiphany that it’s really the developer and not the language that leads to shitty software.

One method of continuous improvement is our “creativity budget”. Basically, it’s money every developer can spend to improve his workplace. This budget wasn’t used at all this year, as the workplaces seem to be optimal. This cannot be true, so we bought brand new computers or a big RAM upgrade for everyone. And every computer has a big enough SSD now. We took our own advice seriously and invested in our productivity.

Our developer crew grew again this year. We are beginning to think about the remaining space in the new office again. But as usual, we grow slowly and deliberately. There’s nothing worse than a team of strangers.

Conclusion

The year 2011 was great! We’re looking forward to the year 2012, with our motto of christmas 2011: “cheery and spry” (the original motto is in german language “froh und munter”, I hope the translation caught the original spirit).

Have a great turn of the year, everyone. We’d love to see you again next year.

Make it visible: The Project Cockpit

How to use a whiteboard as information radiator for project management, showing progress, importance, urgency and volume of projects.

We are a project shop with numerous customers booking software development projects as they see fit, so we always work on several projects concurrently in various sub-teams.

We always strive for a working experience that provides more productivity and delight. One major concept of achieving it is “make it visible”. This idea is perfectly described in the awesome book “Behind Closed Doors” by Johanna Rothman and Esther Derby from the Pragmatic Bookshelf. Lets see how we applied the concept to the task of managing our project load.

What is the Project Cockpit?

The Project Cockpit is a whiteboard with titled index cards and separated regions. If you glance at it, you might be reminded of a scrum board. In effect, it serves the same purpose: Tracking progress (of whole projects) and making it visible.

Here is a photo of our Project Cockpit (with actual project names obscured for obvious reasons):

cockpit1

How does it work?

In summary, each project gets a card and transitions through its lifecycle, from left to right on the cockpit.

The Project Cockpit consists of two main areas, “upcoming projects” and “current projects”. Both areas are separated into three stages eachs, denoting the usual steps of project placing and project realization.

Every project we are contacted for gets represented by an index card with some adhesive tape and a whiteboard magnet on its back. The project card enters the cockpit on the left (in the “future” or “inquiry” region) and moves to the right during its lifecycle. The y-axis of the chart denotes the “importance” of the project, with higher being more important.

cockpit2

In the “upcoming” area, projects are in acquisition phase and might drop out to the bottom, either into the “delay filing” or the “trash”. The former is used if a project was blocked, but is likely to make progress in the future. The latter is the special place we put projects that went awry. It’s a seldom action, but finally putting a project card there was always a relief.

The more natural (and successful) progress of a project card is the advance from the “upcoming” area to the “present” bar. The project is now appointed and might get a redefinition on importance. Soon, it will enter the right area of “current” projects and be worked on.

The right area of “current” projects is a direct indicator of our current workload. From here on, project cards move to the rightmost bar labeled “past” projects. Past projects are achievements to be proud of (until the card magnet is needed for a new project card).

If you want to, you can color code the project cards for their urgency or apply fancy numbers stating their volume.

What’s the benefit?

The Project Cockpit enables every member of our company to stay informed about the project situation. It’s a great place to agree upon the importance of new projects and keep long running acquisitions (the delay filing cases) in mind. The whiteboard acts as an information radiator, everybody participates in project and workload planning because it’s always present. Unlike simpler approaches to the task, our Project Cockpit includes project importance, urgency and volume without overly complicating the matter.

The whiteboard occupies a wall in our meeting room, so every customer visiting us gets a glance on it. As we use internal code names, most customers even don’t spot their own project, let alone associate the other ones. But its always clear to them in which occupancy condition we are, without a word said about it.

Ultimately, we get visibility of very crucial information from our Project Cockpit: When the left side is crowded, it’s a pleasure, when the right side is crowded, it’s a pressure 😉

Batteries not included

Your feature isn’t ready-to-use until you provide the necessary requirements alongside, too.

When I bought a label printing device lately, it came bundled with a label tape roll. That suggested instant usage – no need to think of additional parts upfront. Only tousb-battery-little find out that, you’ve guessed it already, batteries weren’t included. A bunch of standardized parts missing (Murphy’s law applied) and the whole ready-to-use package was rendered useless. The time and effort it took me to get the batteries was the same as to get the label tape I really wanted to use instead of the bundled one.

This is a common pattern not only with device manufacturers, but with software developers, too.

Instant feature – just add effort

Frequently, a software comes “nearly” ready-to-use. All you have to do to make it run is

  • upgrade to the latest graphics drivers
  • install some database system (we won’t tell you how as it’s not our business)
  • create some file or directory manually
  • login with administrator rights once (or worse: always) to gather write access to the registry or configuration file
  • review and change the complete configuration prior to first usage

The last point is a personal pet peeve of mine.

It all boils down to the question if a software or a feature is really ready-to-use. Most of the work you have to do manually is tedious or highly error-prone. Why not add support for this apparently crucial steps to the software in the first place?

It works instantly – with my setup

A common mistake made by developers is to forget about the history of a feature emerging in the development labs. The history includes all the little requirements (a writeable folder here, an existing database table there) that will naturally be present on the developer’s machine when she finishes work, because fulfilling them was part of the development process.

If the same developer was forced to recreate the feature on a fresh machine, she would notice all these steps with ease and probably automate or support (e.g. documentate) them, least to save herself the work of wading through it a third time.

But given that most developers regard a feature “finished”, “done” or “resolved” when the code was accepted by the repository (and hopefully the continuous integration system), the aching of the users wont reach them.

This is a case of lacking feedback.

Feel the pain – publicly

To close this open feedback loop, we established a habit of “adopting” features and bringing them to the user in person to overcome the problem of “nearly done”. If you can’t make your own feature run on the client’s machine within a few seconds, is it really that usable and “ready”? The unavoidable presence of the whole process – from the first feature request to the installed and proven-to-work software acts as a deterrent to fall for the “works on my machine” style of programming. It creates a strong relationship between the user, a feature and the developer as a side-effect.

We’ve seen quite a few junior developers experiencing a light bulb moment (and heavy sweating) in front of the customer. This is the hot-wired feedback loop working. In most cases, the situation (a feature requiring non-trivial effort to be run) will not repeat ever.

Batteries are part of the product

If your product (e.g. software) isn’t usable because some standard part (e.g. a folder) is missing, make sure you add these parts to the delivery package. It is a very pleasant experience for the user to just unwrap a software and use it right away. It shows that you’ve been cared for.

Spelling the feedback: The LED bar

Our fully automated project ecosystem provides us with feedback of very different type and granularity. We felt it was impossible to render every single notable event into its own extreme feedback device (XFD). Instead, we implemented an universal feedback source: the LED bar.

ledbar-alone

You know the LED bar already from a shop window of your town. It tells you about the latest special bargain, the opening hours of the shop or just something you didn’t want to know. But you’ve read it, because it is flashing and moving. You just can’t pass that shop window without noticing the text on the LED bar.

Our LED bar sells details to us. The most important issues are already handled by the ONOZ Lamp and the Audio feedback, as both are very intrusive. The LED bar is responsible to spell the news, rather than to tell it.

A very comforting news might be “All projects sane”, which happen to be our regular state. You might be told that you rendered “project X BROKEN”, but you already know this, as the ONOZ Lamp lit up and you were the one to check in directly before. It’s better to be informed that “project X sane” was the build’s outcome. After a while, the text returns to the regular state or blanks out.

Setting up the LED bar

We aren’t the only ones out there with a LED bar on the wall. Dirk Ziegelmeier for example installed his at the same time, but blogged much earlier about it. He even gives you detailed information about the communication protocol used by the device and a C# implementation for it. The lack of protocol documentation was a bugger for us, too. We reverse engineered it independently and confirm his information. We wrote a complete Java API for the device (in our case a LSB-100R), which we might open source on request. Just drop us a note if you are interested.

Basically, we wrote an IRC bot that understands commands given to it and transforms it into API calls. The API then deals with the low-level transformation and the device handshake. This way, software modules that want to display text on the LED bar from anywhere on the internal net only need to talk on IRC.

The idea of connecting an IRC channel and the led bar isn’t unique to us, either. The F-Secure Linux Team blogged about their setup, which is disturbingly equal to ours. Kudos to you guys for being cool, too.

Effects of the LED bar

The LED bar is the perfect place to indicate project news. Its non-intrusive if you hold back those “funny” displaying effects but versatile enough to provide more than simple binary (on/off) information. Its the central place to look up to if you want to know what’s the news.

We even found out that our company logo (created by Hannafaktur) is scalable down to 7×7 pixels, which exactly fits the LED bar in height:

logo_on_led

Try this with your company’s logo!

Read more about our Extreme Feedback Devices:

Give your project a voice

We are all very into Extreme Feedback Devices (XFD), so we decided to use all our senses to gather feedback from our projects. This becomes a real challenge once you think about it, because we are naturally very focused on (and limited to) visual feedback.

So we decided to put audible feedback to work.

All our projects get continuously built by two servers in parallel. The first server checks for compilation and test errors, just like a good CI server should. The second server applies every quality metric we found helpful to the code and spits out huge amounts of numbers for every single build.

We identified the numbers that really matter to us and established a simple mechanism to scrape them from the result web pages. Then we associated a sound sample with all possible changes and plugged some speakers to our feedback server.

So now, expect our projects to clearly articulate their news.

To give you an idea of how it sounds, here’s a short list of possible audio samples:

  • Fixed an important bug: “Impressive”
  • Reduced code crap: “Excellent”
  • Introduced a bug: “Humiliation”

Imagine the words spoken like in an old Quake game. Now you can have an eventful build and be yelled at like “Impressive Excellent Humiliation”.

We reserved the biggest coding failure we can imagine happening here to a special audio sample. If somebody introduces new code crap (as determined by Crap4J), he gets ordered to “CUT THE CRAP!” at incredible volume. We used the voice of the inventor of XFDs, Alberto Savoia, taken from his delightful training video for management by numbers (position 2:03ff). The audio quality isn’t convincing, his command surely is.

If you wonder what it’s like to be suddenly interrupted by different voices rebuking or praising you – it’s healthy. You get used to it very quickly, yet the information always catches on. And the information is always relevant.

We call it our “audible remorse”.

Read more about our Extreme Feedback Devices:

Der blinde Fleck von Continuous Integration

Blinder FleckAn english version of this blog entry can be found at https://schneide.wordpress.com/2009/12/28/a-blind-spot-of-continuous-integration/

Am Montag früh brach nach einem Routine-Update unseres CI-Servers und anschließendem manuell gestartetem Baudurchgang plötzlich ein Test in einem Projekt, das seit Wochen keine Änderung mehr erfahren hatte.

Die Analyse des Tests zeigte relativ schnell, dass offensichtlich die A-TRIP Regeln für gute Unit Tests verletzt wurden und der Test unter Verwendung des aktuellen Zeitpunkts Datumsberechnungen in die Zukunft und die Vergangenheit testet. Am Sonntag früh wurde auf Sommerzeit umgestellt, so dass dem Test plötzlich eine Stunde in der Vergangenheitsberechnung fehlte.

Den Test zu beheben war einfach, allerdings war er bereits seit Mai 2006 im Projekt enthalten. Seitdem muss dieses Projekt immer um die Zeitumstellung herum inaktiv gewesen sein. Unser Continuous Integration hat das Problem jedenfalls erst jetzt (und auch da nur durch den Zufall einer CI-Aktualisierung zum richtigen Zeitpunkt) gefunden.

Die Phänomene, die durch ungeschickte Unit Tests hervorgerufen werden, sind mit einem verdachtunabhängigen Nightly Build scheinbar zuverlässiger zu finden als mit Continuous Integration. Eine Kombination beider Techniken scheint uns nach dieser Erfahrung lohnenswert zu sein.

Unabhängig von CI oder Nightly Builds gilt: Ein Unit Test, der den Konstruktor von Date, DateTime, Calendar oder einer ähnlichen Klasse aufruft, ist vermutlich ein schlechter Unit Test.

Gedanken zu Online-Hilfen

Eine gute moderne Software hat eine kontextbezogene Online-Hilfe. Bei einer sehr guten modernen Software wird diese nie benutzt, aber das ist ein anderes Thema.

Wir haben in der Schneide verschiedene Ansätze ausprobiert, die alle einen großen Nachteil hatten: Die eingestellten Inhalte waren an manchen Stellen unverständlich oder zu knapp und der Benutzer konnte nicht viel dagegen tun. Daher befassen wir uns gerade mit der Idee, eine Online-Hilfe mit einem Wiki zu koppeln. Auf diese Weise könnten die Benutzer ihre Online-Hilfe selbst verbessern und fortschreiben, so dass die Inhalte hilfreicher werden.

Um die Vor- und Nachteile dieses Ansatzes nicht erst durch den Kunden testen zu lassen, haben wir einen Selbstversuch gestartet. Die Online-Hilfe betrifft allerdings keine Software, sondern die Schneide selbst.

Eine Online-Hilfe für den Arbeitsplatz

Wir haben uns das Konzept der “WikiTags” ausgedacht, kleine Aufkleber mit einer Wiki-Adresse und einem Symbol, das auf diesen Umstand hinweist.

Thumb Spoon WikiTag 

Mit diesen WikiTags rüsten wir gerade alle Räume und Gegenstände in Reichweite aus, so dass sie einem Eintrag in unserer Firmen-Online-Hilfe (unserem Wiki) zugeordnet sind. Über ein kleines Eingabefeld in unserem Intranetportal gelangt man direkt auf die betreffende Wiki-Seite (der sogenannte WikiWarp), kann dort die Informationen zum Gegenstand (z.B. Bedienhinweise oder Bezugsquellen) einsehen und auch gleich verbessern und ergänzen.

Spoon Wiki Page

Wir haben also eine halbautomatisch aktivierbare Online-Hilfe für unsere Firma implementiert und die ersten Erfahrungen damit gesammelt. Was ist die einprägsamste Erfahrung? Wir brauchen kleine, portable Anzeigegeräte für spezielle Anwendungsfälle (siehe Bild).

Special WikiTag