From the article it sounded like it wasn't just "who is this person we would like to question them", it was more along the lines of "we need access to this person's email and other data".
The former seems possibly okay to me, but the latter is definitely not.
They already have an option like that. The problem is a lot of organizations still want to do their own thing or have their own requirements they want to impose on their users, which is where the large amounts of "implementation" comes from.
I fundamentally disagree with the idea that the system can somehow overcome poor implementation; guardrails can only do so much. At the end of the day you can set up almost any piece of software in a way that hinders rather than helps a user. At some point the organization needs to take some responsibility for that.
At any rate, this all started with a glib "garbage software" comment, so I suppose I should happy that you acknowledge that the implementation requirements set by the organization have at least something to do with overall user satisfaction.
I'm not really sure what to say to that, since you seem to be implying that no one likes it, which is pretty patently false.
A lot of it does depend on the organization you're working with, as some are more dysfunctional than others when it comes to setting up best practices and build for their physicians. Others actually listen to their clinical users and tailor the system for them.
That's a pretty pessimistic and quite frankly not accurate assessment of the software. They have a ton of clinical functionality, and that's what the majority of the dev/design spends their time on at their users group meeting, among other places. You might not like it, but many do.
I can understand that as a reason. In this case it sounds like there is a newer, more efficient format that has superseded the old one. (I'm no expert in circuits, so I'll take your word for it.)
If some new technique/workflow/whatever is newer and more efficient, then I'm all for it. I just don't like the attitude that "newer == better" that has seemed to become more and more prevalent in recent years. (I'm not saying you were doing that, but the phrasing you used is something I typically see in that situation.)
Like I said, maybe I was just really lucky, but I never had to deal with Word for grad school. Of course, this was also 9 years ago, so maybe a lot has changed since then. Do journals in the engineering/sciences world really not accept LaTeX anymore?
Maybe I had a unique experience, but when I was in grad school (chemical engineering) we exclusively used LaTeX for thesis work. The journals we worked with also required it, if I recall correctly.
Despite all evidence to the contrary.