By now it’s a year that I have left my last employee job. (which was at Eurofunk, a company providing command and control centers for the public sector, airports, industry, etc).
Since then I have been running my own business full-time.
A while ago I have volunteered as a mentor of the OPW program.
The internship of my mentee, Asal Mirzaeva (Asalle ) has started a few days ago, and so has my mentorship. (Although we have already test-driven the mentor-mentee cooperation during Asalle’s qualification task.)
Her job is:
Asalle is currently setting up the build and debug environment for building and debugging the X-Server. (Debugging the X-Server is quite tricky as you can imagine.)
Asalle is very talented and she already has a good understanding of how the protocol handling and byteswapping works in the X-Server, after reading the relevant source code.
The purpose of recording human-machine-interaction is that we can identify and fix causes of past problems so that these causes cannot happen anymore. These causes may either be on the human side or on the machine-side or in the combination of both.
In mission-critical systems you cannot afford to repeat (near-)accidents and (near-)disasters. Therefore you need to identify causes of such problems reliably the first time they happen. For that it is essential to use sufficient recording and logging that allows you to correctly reproduce all information required for such an analysis. Due to the importance of this, it is crucial to do this recording and logging correctly.
Recording human-machine-interaction is an essential component of a complete logging solution. Therefore it is important to do this correctly, too.
There are several methods for HMI-recording. (HMI is short for human-machine interaction.)
In this article I’ll pick two of them: API-recording and ATG-recording. These methods are both used in practice for recording human-computer-interaction. I’ll highlight the advantages and disadvantages of both methods, and provide a conclusion that may be surprising.