2

Posted this question a few days ago:

Has the syntax of any programming language been usability tested?

Despite getting some really interesting answers it was closed based on the scope being too large.

So I decided to take good chunk of the previous answers, narrow the scope and ask again:

https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/178411/was-c-usability-tested-before-it-was-released

Please help me ask better questions, and let me know what I'm doing wrong here.

Update

The first question was edited and re-opened. I've deleted the second question as it was overlapping too much.

  • I noticed that you deleted the answer (on the second question) I commented on. My comment was only meant to clarify what CW is and isn't for, I wasn't expressing an opinion on the actual answer. – yannis Dec 5 '12 at 18:18
  • I deleted and moved that quote into the question it self, was scrabbling to find out why it was being downvoted. – Justin Tanner Dec 5 '12 at 18:20
  • 1
    Since there were concerns raised about the constructiveness of the question, I'll slap it with a post notice for longer answers. Nothing to worry about, just a warning to answerers to avoid one liners and link only answers. – yannis Dec 6 '12 at 4:29
4

I'm not sure why your first question was closed. Your answer is even an example of a good answer - it cites a language that is an example of one that has undergone usability testing and what they found by doing the studies. Other good answers might have identified other languages that had undergone usability testing, if any existed, and would point to what was learned (or what couldn't be learned) in that process, or resources about conducting usability testing on a new language.

At this point, you probably should have came to Meta to find out why your question was closed instead of posting a new question. Rather than taking shots in the dark at improving your question (and risking a second closure and down votes - two things that go into the triggering of the automatic question ban), finding out exactly what was wrong and trying to fix the question is preferred.

As for your second question, it has a few of its own problems. The question itself answers part of the questions asked. It's evident from the quotation in the body of the question that C# was indeed usability tested, which is the title question. The parts of the language that were tested and the results of those tests (or, at least some of them) were also identified in that quotation. It's not really clear what else you're looking for. Also, although self-answering is allowed, posting multiple answers to one question isn't recommended - answers should address the entire question and be relatively complete (for example, not listing one feature or test per answer, like it appeared you started to do).

If you aren't sure if a question is good, you can also ask about how to best ask it here on Meta or in our chat room.

  • I will def come to meta before re-posting questions from now on. As for where to go from here, I'm not sure, as I was actually looking forward to seeing more answers to the first question. – Justin Tanner Dec 5 '12 at 18:44
  • @JustinTanner I don't have a problem reopening the first question, but I want another pair of eyes on it first to make sure I'm not overlooking a good reason for it to be closed. – Thomas Owens Dec 5 '12 at 18:45
  • sounds fair, if you do reopen the first, i'll try to delete the second question, as there is unnecessary overlap. – Justin Tanner Dec 5 '12 at 18:47
  • @ThomasOwens: Have a look at the second comment on the question. – Robert Harvey Dec 5 '12 at 18:52
  • @RobertHarvey I can't imagine a book that identifies at least one language that was usability tested and explains if usability testing of the syntax of a language is effective. – Thomas Owens Dec 5 '12 at 18:54
  • @JustinTanner Reopened the original question, with some edits. – Thomas Owens Dec 5 '12 at 19:15
  • The first question is arguably a list question, but its answers are decent and I would guess the list would probably be short enough to not be too not constructive. – Ryathal Dec 5 '12 at 21:59

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .