Misconfigured Jira instances exposed data of hundreds of Fortune 500 companies
So, in the documentation, &quot;all&quot; was very unclear.  Users guessed that &quot;all&quot; meant all in the company while it mean all in the whole world!<p>So, wildly ambiguous, unclear, dangerous product documentation.<p>Could clear that up by being really clear and explicit about &quot;all in the world&quot;, &quot;all in the company&quot;, &quot;all in a particular project&quot;, etc. and then lots of very clear examples.<p>But it was easier just to have some check box, icon, etc. described as &quot;all&quot;.<p>In current computing, such documentation nonsense is usually resolved by the usual way of making sense of a computer user interface, <i>experimentation</i>, or use the TIFO method (try it and find out), or throw the options and combinations of options over and over against a wall to see which ones appear to stick, or do the usual, my usual description, &quot;mud wrestling&quot;, all due to bad documentation.<p>It is as if the software were designed and written by people who thought that a check box with &quot;all&quot; was <i>all</i> there was to the work.<p>Well, in this case the TIFO experimentation involved hundreds of Fortune 500 companies and many other organizations, small to the largest, around the world.<p>It is as if the documentation writers were inarticulate and essentially illiterate.<p>So, Xerox PARC thought that some buttons, say, as on a microwave oven, would be sufficient for controlling lots of Xerox office machines.  Then the computer industry, with <i>graphical user interfaces</i> thought that nearly all of computing could also have such a user interface.  Nope:  Commonly even makers of microwave ovens have well written users guides.  The many millions of Web site user interfaces are generally much more complicated to control than a microwave oven and also need good <i>DOCUMENTATION</i>, e.g., much more then cryptic, not a chapter, paragraph, or sentence, not with examples, clear definitions, etc., but just a word or two from a <i>roll over</i>.  And often there is just an icon, can&#x27;t pronounce it, can&#x27;t spell it, can&#x27;t type it in text, can&#x27;t send it in e-mail,  can&#x27;t look it up in a dictionary or with a search engine -- which takes us back to pictographs before the Roman alphabet.  That situation, in technical language, is a bummer; more clearly a disaster as the OP shows.<p>IMHO, a good candidate for the biggest bottleneck in the future of computing is the quite general lack of good technical documentation.<p>E.g., two weeks ago I signed up with a different Internet access provider (ISP).  They promised me I could have up to five e-mail addresses.  Sooo, I tried to get a second address for the alpha test I plan for my project (Web site -- no icons!).  It took 14 hours of my time and nearly that much time with third level technical support.  With decent documentation, I could have done all the work in about 10 minutes.  But, three days ago their Internet service quit in my neighborhood.  Their efforts to reset my equipment (cable modem, IP router, WiFi connection) make my connection from before the outage work no longer.  The fix took a day and a half, about 30 hours of my time, and about 15 hours on their third and fourth level technical support.  With decent technical documentation, I could have fixed the problem myself in 10 minutes.  And I have MANY other such examples.  Several hours or days instead of a few minutes -- HUGE bottleneck to progress.<p>I say again:  One of the worst bottlenecks in the future of computing is the lack of decent technical documentation, in a natural language, e.g., English, and mostly in text.  No joke, guys. Icons, check boxes, radio buttons, text boxes, pull downs, pop ups, roll overs, etc., are NOT and can never be good natural language technical documentation.<p>TIFO on world-class issues is a huge disaster waiting to happen.