Related
We are hiring a UX consultant, had a broadstrokes session with the company, liked their work, think the candidates are ok and now want a more concentrated interview with the specific UX consultant that will be embedded into the scrum team.
What questions should be asking that could weed out any dead weight candidates.
Thanks.
Ask Tog has a good Quiz. I'd also ask stuff on the Gestalt principles, but that's probably because I have a masters degree in HCI (as in that might be a bit academic). That said Gestalt principles are very important especially for things like Form design.
I guess also you could ask them what their favourite book on UX design are, if they can't list any that would be very odd to me.
Personal Experience A good UX practitioner should be taking an interest in the things they use personally. I would ask them what they use personally - obvious technology items like phone and websites, and also less obvious things like kitchen appliances and vending machines. If a UX candidate can't tell me what they observed in their day so far (e.g. the car or public transport they used to get to the interview), that's a good way to weed out the dead weight right there.
Practical Problems As with programming, the best way to assess someone is give them a real-world problem you're facing (or faced) and see how they deal with it. Their thought processes are more important than the answer.
I am a UI Designer/Developer and once I gave an interview to Verizon for UX Designer position. By the way, it was a phone interview. I never worked as UX Designer before. The person who interviewed me asked me about my past work experiences, skill sets and asked me if have contributed as UX designer before. With regards to technical question, he actually sent me a document which had some brief information (part of an application) and then a small interface (it was like a table with some graphic based information, and based on this information, the call center people would respond to user request). I was asked to study this table carefully and then i was given 24 hour timefame to suggest a changed table/design and was asked to explain why would i suggest those changes. Just by looking at that single page document, I didn't understand the problem itself and didn't know what to suggest. I spent 23 hours just looking at the problem and on the 24th hour I did make a suggestion and send them my reply. But didn't work ..... i never heard back from Verizon.
As a UI Designer, I have worked wiith lots of UX Designer and all I know about UX design is that you have to understand the problem very carefully. You need to look for all posible solutions and use the one that would best satisfies the usesr needs. And then you must know how to create wireframes.
Ask them how they would go about designing the UI for some system. Tell them to design a solution for some domain which you know well (for example one of your recent projects), so that in the interview you can take the role of the user. Then the UX consultant will need to dig the necessary requirements from you, find out what is the problem that needs to be solved, and then designing and testing a solution.
Or if you want to make it easier/quicker, use a domain that everybody knows, so that he doesn't need to dig the requirements from you. For example design a system for finding out in which of the nearby restaurants you would like to eat a dinner. In one hour you should get some understanding of what the consultant is like.
Give them some screenshots* of example pages from a selection of sites, some of which you consider good, some bad, and in varying degrees. Ask them to point out good and bad features in each (and there is some good and bad in every site) and explain their thinking. If they fail to spot something obvious, prompt them with a neutral "what about X?" and see how they analyse it.
* finding these isn't hard, but a little time consuming possibly. Even better if you can give them access to an actual browser so you can go over the "live" elements
UX work is made up of two parts: Research and Design. You need to be clear which you want most emphasis on: someone who can grok out massive taxonomies and build wireframes in their sleep, vs someone who has hundreds of hours of usability lab experience. (You can find people who have both areas of expertise, but people often lean in one direction).
Beware of UX consultants who have never been embedded in a scrum team before. They will need some bedding in time. If they are used to working agency-side rather than client-side, they will be used to doing shortish research projects and then leaving. This kind of "skirmish" is quite different to the long-view you have to take when working client side.
Here's what I'm wondering. Every night that our 3 months old baby lets us sleep, I jump to my computer and start coding my hobby projects. I have about 20 different projects that I'm working on: different types of projects, from C++ games to web apps along with some contribution to open source projects. It's truly a passion and has been for a lot of years.
Yet, when I look back, I see that I haven't been able to fully complete one of my hobby projects. I've always done the prototypes and setup the most important features, but with time instead of finishing my project I end up switching to another project that seems "so much cooler" at the moment. Hence I usually end up with buggy and incomplete games that have no end nor story, 3D engines that have the fastest PolygonDraw routine ever, yet lack to implement anything else, etc... The list is long. I think I must have written unfinished Pong over a hundred times different!
I've been told that the remedy is to write specs for my hobby projects.
On one hand, I write a lot of specs at work. I know how crucial they are for defining a product's roadmap and staying within schedule. On the other hand, specs and hobby project just quite don't seem to go along! It seems to me that the learning curve to building a game is actually what makes it fun; not the game itself. Hence the fun of losing time restructuring an entire engine, the fun of creating the most useless features, and so on...
So here comes the question: Do you ever write specifications for your hobby projects? How are they different then the ones from work? How do you manage to complete your hobby projects?
I'd be glad to know while I work on my new project: a piano sonata generator :)
I don't think writing specs is the solution to your problem. Clearly, your "hobby projects" are things that you find fun. You write the fun parts but then avoid the not fun parts that would be necessary to complete something.
If you're just "programming for fun" then good, you're succeeding. I don't think writing specs is fun.
If you really want to "finish" something, the best way isn't to write a spec, it's to not jump to another project when the fun factor dips.
It is all about 'Self project management' ... even for fun.
I feel for you ... I used to have many repos that tended to all get stuck at around revision 200 or so.
Here is what used to happen, because I didn't do enough planning, after around 200 commits, things get messy and need a rewrite ... then interest disappears because it seems like too much hassle.
I learned to write my own specs for personal use
to
Give me focus to get the job done, and not go off into feature creep lane
Remind me what I am working towards
To have great ideas before I get coding
Keep thing more fun for a longer time
For me, writing my own specs is vital to getting anything done!
You wouldn't start a business without a plan would you?
For personal projects I have tons of moleskine books filled with rough specs and ideas. When they mature, they migrate from the note books into real documents and the coding begins.
BIG EDIT: On a drive for personal efficiency and, to get projects finished. I read "Getting Things Done" ... Despite all the hippy crap about 'psyche' and various levels of mind (which im sure is not based in any science) the tips are very good.
I don't get too complicated, but listing out all of the features and requirements that you want included in your application really does help. As with most hobby projects you often don't just sit down and code them straight through for 2 months and finish them. It's an hour here, two hours there, etc. Basically it's very common to forget what you were working on last and what the original purpose of this super great idea for an application was.
If you spend a few hours writing down specs and requirements it will be very valuable to you 6 months down the road when you get some free time or your ADD switches to that project and you try to remember what it is this was suppose to do.
I just found out recently that writing specs is really the thing I need to get my projects done.
I've been a bit like you, tons of projects, jumping from one to the other and never getting things finished. Until about 6 months ago, when I started to actually write specs and have a kind of roadmap for my projects.
All that I can say is that, it actually works, because you break your projects into smaller steps, just like a race with checkpoints, and when you start to mark the checkpoints as done, it feels good, addictive and your focus will be on the finish line.
This way, you get to keep only 1 or 2 projects at the same time, but actually finish them. And of course, you have the extra and pretty valuable bonus of keeping up with the project even if you don't touch it for about a month or more. The specs will always be there to remind you of the goals and purposes of your project.
This is just my personal experience, and I believe that you should give it a try. Hopefully it will workout for you too.
I've been able to do some hobby projects and finish some of them. I try to finish them all but some i just cant muster.
The reason i think is that the amount of details that are needed to finish a projects are so many that it goes from a passion project to a chore of a project.
What helped me finish most of mine is that they stayed a passion until the finishing touches were left. So i just plowed through them.
Will a spec help, to some degree yes. They get you further into the project but almost always there's a point where the passion fades and you look for the next shiny object.
It doesn't work for me! Infact whenever I'm writing up specs I'm generally making the projects even bigger, and less likely to be finished.
Sometimes the best way to do it is to just do it.
Ze Frank explains this much better than me:
http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2006/07/071106.html (video link with swearing)
EDIT: Just to add. If you are finding you want to leave your half-finished project for a new, grand idea... do it! Don't look back!
Completion is not a requirement for your own pet projects. Nobody will blame you for not finishing stuff that barely anyone else would even bother starting.
The reason you started was because of passion. That is very important. You should not force yourself to 'slog through' in your free time. You will drain your passion which is your most vital resource.
I usually write a first set of spec when I get started.
I'm also a big fan of paper thinking, so I'll draw screens, UML, diagrams, flow charts, design elements... It's just a matter of defining the scope of your project and be able to watch what you had in mind. It really helps me think.
These documents will be my specs for the whole project. I will add others as I go, but I'm not trying to maintain the old ones as much as I would have it it was a work project: I know where I'm going and I can keep track of the changes looking at my code.
Of course, some of my hobby projects are done collaboratively. In these cases, I write down more specs in order to have a better communication with my team and I try to keep documents such as DB Diagrams up to date.
I also have several hobby projects that I have not finished. I have about 10 and have written a specification for exactly one of them, the largest in scope (also a game).
I have not finished either the ones without specifications, nor the one with. I think this is because I never publish the work or show it to anyone so it remains full of bugs and never 'finished.
I suppose that this means that regardless of whether or not you have a spec, it will not affect the success of the project as much as other factors, like having the time, motivation, help, and having confidence.
The single best thing I've ever found to help move towards completion is to have someone else working on the project with you. Find a friend (or two) who is interested in the same thing and design/code it with them. Not only do you have someone to bounce ideas off of, but you've also got someone to motivate you, not to mention progress is twice as fast so you'll hopefully finish before you give up :)
Of course, it requires source control, but you were already using that for your projects, right? :)
Do you want to finish them?
I think it's reasonable to never finish a hobby project. You can just keep working on it as long as you live. Aciddose has been working on his virtual instrument xhip for years, stubbornly never getting to 1.0, making the instrument patches people program worthless from one release to the next. Yet he and the users of his softsynth seem to be having a grand time.
Maybe if you just aim for a "release" and not being "finished" you'll be more satisfied. Betas let you keep dreaming.
Yes and no. I write notes in a notebook as I'm thinking about it, and add to it as I implement it. It is a somewhat different process from work projects where someone else may have to see the spec.
I finish about half of what I start.
I've helped with development on a range of systems from safety critical avionics to throwaway personal projects like a Sudoku solver. Obviously with the avionics systems, specifications were critical to the safe operation of the system and to prevent killing somebody, but I've never bothered with my personal projects.
I think this is because specs are generally boring to read and write. Joel wrote an interesting article about this, and how to make them better if you do write them:
Painless Functional Specifications
Unfortunately I haven't had the guts to try making my specs more fun to read at work yet.
Maybe intead of writing specs you should try working on some projects for or with other people? That could provide some external motivation. I do some web devleopment for my cousin's drive in theater, and if they need a feature they won't stop asking me about it until I finish it.
The single biggest piece of advice I could give you would be to get something out there - make the spec for your first version small enough that you actually feel you can complete it, even though it won't have nearly all the features you want.
Once you get something out there, the pressure from users of your software will be enough to hopefully keep you going on it. It also ensures that the direction you take in development is the same direction your users want you to go.
If you don't actually get any users, then don't feel so bad about dropping the project - if nobody is interested, it probably isn't worth pursuing.
If pressure from your users isn't enough to keep you focused, then open source it. If there's enough interest in it, somebody else will pick it up where you left off, and you are free to move on to bigger and better things.
Unfortunately, after writing specs for the core of the DIFL engine (don't bother looking it up, as there's no trace of it outside my home systems), I still didn't finish it up.
Short answer: developing specifications for a hobby project is neither necessary nor sufficient to guarantee completion.
That being said...
I keep an engineering notebook for all of my personal projects. I use the notebook to capture all sorts of things about the projects on which I work. This includes project motivation, valuable resources leveraged during the project, things developed over the course of the project that might potentially be reused later, key insights gained, etc. etc. It also includes, more to your question, specifications for most of the projects. I employ an agile/lean approach to creating these specifications which, for me, is compelling from a cost/benefit perspective.
btw...I have many, many personal projects that did not culminate in a complete working system. Some of these I might get around to completing 'someday maybe'. I consciously chose to stop working on some of the others because they had served their purpose (e.g. introduced me to a new technology, helped me better understand a language feature, etc.) Continuing to crank away at projects like these would have led to diminishing returns so I chose to reallocate my time to projects I felt were higher leverage.
The real question is: what is your hobby? Is it finishing a project, or tinkering. If getting the last ten yards is a chore, you have to decide if it's worth it to you. Writing detailed specs will work; so will self-flagellation if you're into that sort of self-discipline. Nothing will make it easy if it's against your make-up, so you have to decide whether the end-goal is worth anything to you.
And, just to demonstrate that there is nothing programming-specific about this point, you might really like this guy. One of the main points in his work is that conceptual artists, such as Picasso and Da Vinci never really cared about the final execution--the idea was everything, and, having asserted it, they were strangely content with someone else finishing the actual work or leaving the sketch unfinished and unpublished.
I'm not sure that writing specs is the solution to your problems (or mine which seem similar) however in the case where I want to make something more than a throwaway experiment there are a few things that help me slightly without taking the fun out of it.
Specs really are quite tight and should be technical but for a hobby approach you could write up a little bit of something similar much more loose that outlines some of the things you would like to feature and shows how they fit together in a sort of design draft. Though not as detailed or restrictive as a proper spec it might help to keep the tinkering leading in the right direction.
Secondly you could break it down and depending on your time allowances maybe add a few goals in. If you focus on building one part of the project as a time breaking it into subprojects that can be linked together at the end, it gives a feeling of progress as you move from part to part rather than feeling like you have been working on the same thing for ages and can't be bothered any more. It works if you tick it off on a list, since usually it has to happen atleast mentally anyway.
In saying this if your goal is to play with certain concepts and not actually create a final product then you probably won't because you aren't working towards it. One way might be to take the above mentioned idea of breaking it up and then find a way of adding something personally interesting into each part that bores you, maybe trying to add a challenge into it or something.
I'm not particularly experienced still learning, but this is how I keep my tinkering together(sometimes unless I hit a total block cause by inexperience) and how I've approached many multimedia and web projects on a hobby basis in past years. Though the guy who said open-source it when you get bored and let someone else pick it up, that was a good idea if you want to see your code used but have satisfied your personal goals.
I have much the same problem. One thing I've noticed that HAS helped though, is lowering my ambitions. like WAY WAY low. Writing a spec is one way to reign in the ambitions, if you have some kind of limiting rule for the spec, like "The spec can only be one page", or "the spec can be no longer than 300 words long", or "Spec only something that I can get done in one day of coding". Getting the balance right can take some practice. If you go with the last limit, you can impose the rule of MANDATORY dismissal of the project if you can't finish it in one day.
The nice thing about this, is it limits you to achievable goals. This might sound really stupid or wrong at first. Or maybe it sounds reasonable, but you just can't help it, you wanna do amazing things, not ordinary things! Not small things that you can only get done in a few hours!
but keep this in mind:
“A complex system that works is
invariably found to have evolved from
a simple system that worked. The
inverse proposition also appears to be
true: A complex system designed from
scratch never works and cannot be made
to work. You have to start over,
beginning with a working simple
system.”
—John Gall
It is SO MUCH easier to make that ambitious project, if you already have a FINISHED and WORKING project to base it on. Then the "more complex thing" CAN be a project that fits in a day. This is the ideal and philosophy I'm working towards, because I think it has the best chance of succeeding. Looking at past successful projects, the vast majority of them evolved in this way, whether it was intentional or not.
What helps me a lot is to split a new feature into small tasks that could each be done in an evening hacksession. So if I have time, I simply pick one task from the list and just finish it. This is often enough to get "in the flow" and do "just one more".
I do this only for one feature at a time so I don't get distracted by all the other cool things I could add to my application.
I constantly write specs for my projects, in work, at university and outside in my free time. The biggest weakness of a programmer is his/her memory, so I find it good to keep myself busy during my thinking time by writing down my every thought into some sort of structured document. Before you know it you've written a full database schema or have a Requirements Specification.
At the moment I'm working on improving my SQL skills, and I've been spending a lot of this free time between writing queries writing down my experienced. After a couple of tweaks I had a decent document outlining what needed to be done.
I think the core problem is not the lack of specs, but rather that finishing something (anything) is hard.
It is hard work. It may seem as if your program is 90 % done. But doing those last 10 % (rooting out all bugs, getting the application to release quality, writing documentation, etc) requires as much work as the first 90 %. And if you want to be serious about marketing your program, answering support emails, fixing other people's bugs, that's more work still. And perhaps not the kind of work you are most interested in.
It is also hard mentally. An unfinished project has unlimited potential. It is an empty canvas where you can project your unbridled ambitions, lofty ideals and revolutionary thoughts. Once it is finished and made real you have to see it for what it is. Limited. Flawed. Never as pretty as the idea that spawned it.
That said, finishing something can also be very rewarding. You learn a lot, get a reality check on your ideas, the satisfaction of having completed something and you get to see what other people think of your work.
Some advice:
Make sure that you really want to finish the project. I.e., that the rewards are worth all the hard work. (If not, then accept that fact and remain a happy tinkerer.)
Find ways of motiviating yourself through the "boring" parts. Specs, maybe, if it keeps you focused. But find whatever works for you, whether it is ticking of todo-items, rewarding yourself with a cookie or dreaming of fame and fortune.
Release early, release often. The more you save for a "big release" the bigger is the chance that that release never happens.
First release, then rewrite. When you feel the urge to do a major rewrite, do a release first, then do the rewrite (if you are still up for it). Software is never perfect. If you strive for perfection without any pressure to release your half-baked (but existing) code, then you will never be done.
Most hobby projects of mine don't really get finished either. As long as I'm working on something and learning though I don't think thats a problem. Currently I'm not writing specs, but I am practicing/training TDD. I bring it up as I write tests that are the specs. Some days I'll sit down and just create a bunch of tests outlining what the software should do. Some days I make those tests pass. Its enjoyable in that I don't have to keep the code all in my head, and at any point I can sit down and make further progress by fixing the broken tests. Things just work, its kind of surreal.
Joel's article about the Evidence Based Scheduling works for me. Though I implemented it differently.
The idea is to break the project into small tasks and give estimates, then make a forecast when your project will finish based on the time the finished tasks took to finish them.
You may think your project will take years to finish, but actually from the estimate it's just two months or less. If you work more and finish tasks quickly, you will see the finish date coming earlier.
I think the most motivating thing to proceed forward is seeing the goal coming closer you run towards.
Plus: create something you will use later. Using stuff gives you incentive to improve it later.
I have become pretty fluent in a few different languages now, but I seem to have a hard time actually figuring out the best way to go about solving particular problems. What are some ways to go about getting better at the actual problem solving of programming.
Experience. Solving something completely new is hard. The best way to solve problems is to try and find a problem that you've solved before, and that is similar, and adapt you solution to the new problem. So until you have experience with many different kinds of problems, it's hard to solve new problems that you come across. Visiting sites like this and reading questions and theirs answers are a great way of learning how others solved problems that they encountered.
Basically, "just do it". When you have to make a choice, just make any choice (except flipping a coin).
Once you have something that works, then sit back and scratch your head about what you did wrong and how to do it better.
If you have absolutely no clue how to do even that, just solve a part of the problem completely and move on.
I suggest checking out this book. They aren't the best kid on the block, though they want us to think they are...but they did well with Basecamp.
When all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail.
So, make sure you're well versed in algorithms and data structures. When you study them, think hard about what sort of uses a particular algorithm is good for.
Ask someone else. Someone in your office, on Twitter or SO, or even your wife. People with no technical knowledge often come up with simpler solutions.
If you must solve it on your own, try one of these others:
Do a quick search for another person or project which has tried to solve your problem. If they have a blog, documentation or source code, you might be able to learn from their implementation.
Come up with at least TWO solutions and pick the best one.
Pretend you have 15 minutes to solve the problem before the civilized world is destroyed by Nuclear War / Skynet / Permanent endless re-runs of Seinfeld, you might think of something much simpler which gets 99% of the work done.
The book is a set of heuristics to go through when solving a problem. Read about it on Wikipedia. Buy it on Amazon.
By solving actual problems. Practice makes perfect.
If you have time to become fluent in multiple languages, my guess is that you haven't spent much time doing any actual work. If you have a job, it might be time for a new one. If you're still in school, do you have any interest in starting a project for yourself or contributing to one that you use regularly?
It might help to know what kinds of problems you're having difficulty solving.
Go find an open source or free project you can get excited about and contribute. I learned a lot by signing up to code for my favorite video game modification.
Experience.
Study really only goes so far. Find something fun and small. Do it.
One way that seems to work for a lot of people is to pick use a book like Programming Challenges as a guide, and focus on solving problems of a particular type. For example if you're weak in an area like graph problems or dynamic programming, find a set of problems on an online judge and work through them. You'll start to recognize patterns and be able to classify problems.
Google for an answer. Chances are someone else has solved the same problem or a similar problem before.
Ask on SO. :)
Read some textbooks or online articles about design patterns.
Problems may have many solutions, some simpler and some more complicated. Don't get stuck thinking there is only one solution. Just go with the simplest solution that makes the most sense in the context of your application.
After years of experience you'll be able to think of your own solutions to most problems. :)
Study Algorithms!
Search and get a hold on as many examples, books on the subject programming or otherwise, etc.
Problem solving skills can also be improved by playing tactical games.
These made me Enjoy problem solving and become better (not necessarily good) at problem solving:
Chess and igo
I like this general method:
List the possible solutions with their strengths and weaknesses
(This will push you to briefly taste all of them)
Chose the best one and make your design on it
(If you find any heavy obstacle, reconsider other options)
Implement
most importantly, on every step, learn
The best way is probably to learn form a master if that's an option. Especially if you can find someone familiar with the problems your addressing.
Generally the more tools we have at hand the more options we have for tackling a problem. I agree that's important to always code and to always deliver something that works (however inelegant it is). But I think we need to increase our skills/knowledge in many directions:
Language skills (know your language(s) in depth)
Programming paradigms (Imperative, Object, Functional)
Framework knowledge
Algorithms
Patterns
Date-Structures
Methodologies (Agile, DDD, BDD, ?DD)
Tools
etc
You can get a lot of skill through on the job just-in-time-learning, but I usually have a pet subject at any time that I'm trying to get a deeper understanding of, typically this means getting the book and reading it cover to cover.
Work your way through Project Euler, and look at other people's solutions to the problems. Almost every problem will have been solved in a way that wouldn't have occurred to you, and usually with greater efficiency.
I think that there is a lot more than raw experience involved in becoming a good problem solver - because I've seen poor problem solvers with lots of experience.
Here are a few tips but you can find many more around the web.
Look at a number of problems and
figure out what they have in
common. The greater the generality
with which you understand the
solution to a problem, the more you
can apply it to other problems.
Try to discover approaches which
good problem solvers use to solve problem. But don't assume anyone has monopoly on problem solving
If you read Richard Feynman's
books, you'll notice that he
considers many different routes to
get to his goal. Don't narrow your
approach prematurely
Be positive. Assume that you can find
the solution to anything. Your state of mind matters. Enjoying the process of problem solving makes it much easier
Don't beat your head against the wall. If you don't
seem to be making progress with one approach, try another approach
Always be looking for more ways of
solving problems and more insights
into the process of problem solving itself
Be willing to work. It still can take a lot of effort solve some problems
The more different fields of study you know, the more viewpoints you have. I have a strong math background and I find it very useful for many problems. Physics, music or any different viewpoint might be useful
Practice solving problems.
Take an algorithms or discrete math course.
Here some tools that I've used in the past to help me understand a particular problem and its solution. I don't always use them today, but they helped me to learn how to think about breaking down a problem and coming up with a solution.
Class-Responsibility-Collaboration (CRC) cards
One card per class, details the responsibility of the class and what other classes it collaborates with. Using cards you can layout your design for the solution and see where you have too much coupling or too much responsibility. They allow you to think about the design in a lightweight manner before committing to code.
Use cases
Either actual structured use cases that describe user interaction with the system or even briefer stories or story cards. I still use stories, though I capture them in a wiki instead. This allows you to capture the interaction with the system in an informal way. Stories are basically placeholders for conversations that you need to have with the customer about what is supposed to be done. Using the collected stories, you start getting a grasp on the overall intention of the code. You can also start seeing how things interact and what works with other things. This is really the beginning of design.
UML Diagrams - particularly interaction diagrams
For awhile I used these a lot. It really helped to see how things actually worked together under the hood. I will still diagram, informally, some complex interactions to make sure I don't miss anything important. Going through a lot of these really helped me to think about how my objects interacted and now it is sort of second nature to think in terms of interactions.
Class diagrams -- a really high level view of the code.
These allow you to see your code structurally, especially if you can break the diagram down into components or layers of architecture. Mostly I use these now to explain the code to other people when necessary. When starting out these provide a pretty good visualization, though, if you're struggling with the bird's-eye view of the code.
The best advice I can give you if you try these is to follow the "rules" until you really have a good grasp of what is going on. Once you feel like you have a better understanding of what they provide, you can use them or not, or modify how you use them to keep only what is helpful and let the other stuff go.
I'm not really asking about how programmers learn how to program. More about specific technologies. If I wanted to learn Hibernate, how do I know what I should know prior to Hibernate? Should I learn JPA before, during or after Hibernate? Is there a better solution to Hibernate? (And I'm not really looking for information on Hibernate specifically)
Maybe stackoverflow is the place to find these answers, but it seems like with the shear vastness of frameworks, apis, libraries, programming languages, platforms, and whatever other techie word you want to use, it takes an extremely long time to come up to speed on what technology to use, when and what you need to know prior to using it.
Sometimes the best way to learn is to just dig in to a framework. Sure, you could use someones wrapper API around something, but if there is something wrong w/ hibernate, then you wouldn't know what's happening.
And to answer "how do i know what i should know prior to hibernate", you don't, that's why you are learning. When learning about c++, started out with simple data types, but i didn't know about pointers yet, didn't need to, but i learned about them when i got there. Just gotta jump in and start playing around.
I use Wikipedia to compare various technologies to copmlete a task, although it can be incomplete with regards to commercial closed-source frameworks (probably because fewer people have access to them).
For specific technologies such as Hibernate, Java, JPA, LDAP (OpenLDAP in particular), Log4J, anything Apache: they all have wikis and/or forums associated with the product that are usually more helpful than a Google search for learning. Many even come with tutorials and you should try them.
Find a book on the subject and read it. Then email the author with additional questions. Most of these authors are more than happy to help especially if you've bought and read the materials they worked so hard to produce.
If that's still not enough for you, go to a conference covering the subject, if you can make it. Again you can meet many of the people responsible for maintaining and/or creating these technologies and I've found they are always willing to answer questions.
go to sites like Coding Horror, Slashdot, Techcrunch etc and find out what people are talking about. Usually if something is popular it's probably something you might want to talk a look at.
There are these things called "books" that are filled with all kinds of knowledge.
A lot of the time the documentation and/or tutorial for any technology or project will mention what prior knowledge is assumed or useful.
So for example hibernate: http://www.hibernate.org/hib_docs/v3/reference/en/html_single/#tutorial-intro
"This tutorial is intended for new users of Hibernate but requires Java and SQL knowledge"
For me, the things that have helped my career and taught me what questions to ask are:
Podcasts -- .NET Rocks, etc., which introduce and discuss new technologies and put them in context
Join your local users group, and stick around after the presentation to talk shop with the folks there; you can learn a lot just by hearing what other people are doing and what they are working on learning next
Just look around online and start trying to use whatever tool/technology your trying to learn. As you try to learn one thing, you'll realize your lacking knowledge in other needed areas. at which point you can repeat the process of looking around for this new item you need to learn.
for example, maybe you want to learn Rails, so you start following rails tutorials, but you realize you suck at Ruby. so then you start to focus a bit more on the details of Ruby, then come back to Rails with a little more knowledge and continue on till the next roadblock. this isn't really totally correct, but you get the idea.
you won't always find a full guide of how to use everything. just give it a shot and work it out on your own if you have the time
There is an infinite number of things one could learn. Maybe a better approach would be to think of a project that interests you, or join an open source one, and then learn what you need to know to accomplish what is needed in that project. When you're done, pick a new project that might include new things not learned in the last project.
As far as free sources are concerned, as a .NET programmer I like www.asp.net, and there are many others, such as the ASP.NET quickstart tutorials at http://quickstarts.asp.net/QuickStartv20/default.aspx, C-SharpCorner is good, too, if you don't mind C#.
If you don't object to paying a little money, Lynda.com is a decent place. They have OK tutorials on all kinds of things, not just programming, and I got a decent grounding in Javascript using one of their tutorials. They are adding new things all the time, so if they don't have something on Hibernate now, they may later on. I think their basic rate is $25 per month, but you can just pay for one month and then soak up as many courses as you can find time for.
Asking a more specific question will get your a more specific answer here. When I want to read up on something I usually head to Wikipedia and then Google.
The truth is none of us have the time to read everything we'd like to. So I let someone else do it for me!
The way I solve this is by speed-reading the web - aka. subscribing and reading to other peoples blogs.
Everytime I come across something I'm not familiar with I google it.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
Does anyone have any suggestions on how to mentor a junior programmer ? If you have mentored someone did you follow any process or was it quite informal ?
If you've been mentored in the past what kind of things did you find most helpful ?
Try to set aside between 30-60 minutes a day to review their code together. If you can't do this, then try to get together to review their code whenever they make a code commit, unless it was very basic. Have them explain why they chose the approach they took in lieu of others. A process like this helps to establish a great relationship, as well as really stimulate the student to think on their own and be able to defend their decisions. Not only does the student end up with someone approachable whom they can trust, but you'll notice an improvement in their quality of code and logic almost immediately.
Edit: Also, If you are unable to commit this much time to co-review with your junior, then you probably shouldn't be mentoring them and instead see if anyone else has a schedule that would allow it. The whole point of mentoring is to actively aid in the professional development of the student, and they're not going to learn much if proper attention and guidance is not given to them.
I had the chance to work as an intern (one of two) in a small software company and had the opportunity to work on an "almost new" project they had. They had me set up with everything needed and gave me an introduction into what the project actually was (basic stuff like what the requirements were etc).
At first we got to do minor tasks like researching things that mattered to the project (they had given us a list of topics). This was, I think, to see how much we could handle ourselves, as the things we needed to look up and research were not that trivial and it took a good 2 weeks or so (counting the basic demos we had to create for it). That testing phase was actually done really without much 'coaching'.
However, after that period we could work on the actual project itself. This was also the moment we began to be coached together, in a similar style to pair programming, except there were three of us (2 interns and 1 'coach').
We learned a lot from him, but it was in an informal manner, and he didn't act like the 'all-knowing-listen-to-me' guy. When we had suggestions he would listen and think through with us whether they were any good. or give his view on why an idea should not be done in that way... Now that I think of it, he actively encouraged us to make suggestions, and to think about better ways to do things, instead of just sitting there 'taking orders' from someone who probably knows what to do better then you.
So in short:
Let the junior programmer work (mostly) on his own to study the materials at hand, give him a list of minor TODO things like looking up information, or building small demos.
Check the work he has done regularly and advise him if there are better ways to do things. Also point out the items he actually did well, that way he'll remember those for later.
Let him work on a real project, and mentor him by working together at the same project, giving him advice when he has questions.
The effort has to come from both directions: encourage him to ask questions, to challenge 'the way it is currently done'. Ask him questions on how he thinks it should be done and give him your opinion as well.
Make it 'enjoyable' - don't let it look like you are giving orders.
During an internship w/ a large company that had a lot of in house IT, I was paired w/ a mentor. The practice definitely aided my career development, both in terms of technical skills and business skills. Here are some of the reasons the mentoring worked out so well:
Credible: The mentor had 8+ years of experience and an accomplished background to draw upon in leading and training. He'd been through different challenges, worked in different environments, so he had a great perspective.
Genuine: The mentorship was encouraged by the supervisor, but not so formal as to make it an exercise in going through the motions. The mentor wanted to mentor, and I wanted someone to learn from.
Passion: The mentor loved the field he was in, the problems he was solving, and the technologies he was using. When I came under his wing, I found this to be infectious.
Sharp and Articulate: The mentor approached issues critically and framed them concisely. There wasn't a lot of fuzziness in our discussions; we got to the root of the matter and he directed me on wise courses of problem solving and action.
Meaningful: The work I was doing w/ the mentor was meaningful work, not just an exercise to keep busy or ramp up in a skill set. By jointly working on a task that tangibly aided the organization, that helped focus my interest and legitimize the mentoring process.
At my first place of employment there was this really patient dude that would always help me solve my immediate problem, and then teach me some important underlying principle. I loved this because he would help me stay productive while teaching me how to become a better programmer.
I'd be the junior, I guess :) I think I'd value an informal approach. It probably depends a lot on your and your mentee's characters, but I'd say that you learn best if you don't have egos in the way. Break the ice, make sure there's feedback in both directions. Things like code reviewing (both ways?) and occasional pair programming may work, and if there's a good match, it may be a lot of fun, as well!
Because I had to explain why I wanted to co-op (besides needing the money) during my interview, my manager made sure my first project allowed me to work on what I had identified as weak areas: very little Linux experience (I chose a Linux-only R&D team so I would be forced to learn), not knowing a useful text editor (I really wanted to learn Vim), and how to learn another programming language (very different approach than learning a language as you learn to program). He told me I was being paid to study for a while.
I learn best by reading books, so after chuckling over Unix for Dummies (yay! I wasn't the only one who thought this was obscure and knuckleheaded sometimes) I started with Unix in a Nutshell and Sobell's Practical Guide to Linux Commands. After that I printed out the Vim documentation and started going through it. Then I looked through a couple books on Python, the language of my first project. I was given all the time I needed to feel comfortable about these things (which was the real problem, as I now understand) and then began adding functionality to a previous co-op's project.
I realize now it would have been terrific to meet with someone every day or two for code review, as Kamikaze Mercenary said.
In my experience, when mentoring someone, it is very important for the mentee to really WANT to learn more.
Never ever spoon feed them. Instead point them towards things of value and have them utilize the new information they are learning in projects that they are using. Knowledge is useless if not put into practice. So encourage your mentee to code, code, code.
Here would be my short list:
Pair programming - This is helpful for many things, like reinforcing various ideas and practices. Getting used to Resharper is much easier when you pair with someone that uses it often.
Informal chats - This is where we would go get a drink, go outside for someone to have a smoke break, go for lunch together, etc. While away from the desks, the discussion may be related to work immediately being done or it may be abstract philosophical stuff that can help bring someone's game up a notch or two. Talking about various upcoming technologies or changes in what coming can be exciting and help form bonds as well.
Feedback and suggestions - This is what occured in both above cases. Books like "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie can help in understanding various human relationship dynamics, which while that sounds quite technical is really just about how to motivate someone else in various ways. A key point here is to know how to leave a trail of breadcrumbs to pick up some practices, like giving hint after hint about something rather than just give the answer. I have had various Math teachers that had a gift for this for how I developed some of this skill.
So part of this is merely motivating the other person and trying to guide them as when someone figures something out for themself it can be an empowering and enlightening experience. The, "I did it! That's right, moi, yours truly!" kind of self-talk is quite nice when it happens.
Ask them what would they try next to complete the task. This can give an idea of where from the "I don't know what to do" to "Well, I would try this but..." category are they in terms of having their own idea that may be useful for a starting point.
Take a quick look at what they want to do and offer hints so that they figure out the problem. This is rather than give the answer of, "Just take out this line of code," suggest they look at what is there and is it all necessary
I would recommend start giving parts of real assignments you have and make everything to be able to use his code. In other words train him as replacement for yourself.
This way you will commit yourself to allocating time to work with junior and he will be able to see "real life". By working on real assignments and hearing lively feedback he will be able to get p to speed rather quickly.
Drawback of this approach is that it is possible that it will have too narrow focus on you particular project. So be sure to show the trainee possible alternatives and encourage trade-offs analysis to widen his professional horizon.
Couple of years ago I worked for a small company, where on the first day I was given a list of small task to complete - do some little changes in code, find and fix a small bug in the project. It really helped me to ask the right questions from my mentor and familiarize myself with the environment, the code base. These tasks were easy to complete, so I had a little bit of self confidence, before turning to the bigger tasks.
This way of mentoring really worked with me very well, so I am planning to do the same with our new colleague.
I have mentored several junior people under me before. My approach varied slightly based on the person a bit based on how they learned.
In short, I gave the junior people small, self-contained projects when I could and gave them a relatively fixed time to complete the task. Once the task was complete I would review their approach, code and solution and made suggestions for improvements or a better way to handle the problem. I think this way they don't feel overwhelmed being part of a much larger project.
Hope this helps a bit.