Backing this up: several of my friends and I jokingly identify as "human fuzzers". A "fuzzer" is network penetration testing terminology for a tool that builds nonsensical data packets to throw at a network service (including the network itself; some of them build invalid network packets at various levels) to look for combinations that cause various kinds of service failure.
In our case, we have a certain tendency to put together uses of various programs that are obvious to us, but which those programs' designers and testers apparently never considered.
The fact of the matter is that generally the people who design something (a tool, a program, a web service) have certain notions about how they will be used, and the more time they put into the design, the more likely they will overlook even apparently similar alternative ways of using them. (Think of it as hyperfocusing. And the more you think about something, the more likely you'll get stuck into certain ruts, usually without realizing it.) As someone who's been on both the using and designing side of this, I can say I'm always happy to hear about it if there's some option or possibility I've missed.
But I have certainly known designers and developers who become very annoyed in that case; sometimes because they're so caught up in their design that alternatives come across to them as being in some sense wrong, other times because they're kicking themselves in the butt for blindness but are bad at keeping their self-annoyance out of their interactions with others. (And I will also admit that at times I have had problems with the latter. I hope I've been getting better at catching myself and if necessary taking some deep breaths.)
no subject
In our case, we have a certain tendency to put together uses of various programs that are obvious to us, but which those programs' designers and testers apparently never considered.
The fact of the matter is that generally the people who design something (a tool, a program, a web service) have certain notions about how they will be used, and the more time they put into the design, the more likely they will overlook even apparently similar alternative ways of using them. (Think of it as hyperfocusing. And the more you think about something, the more likely you'll get stuck into certain ruts, usually without realizing it.) As someone who's been on both the using and designing side of this, I can say I'm always happy to hear about it if there's some option or possibility I've missed.
But I have certainly known designers and developers who become very annoyed in that case; sometimes because they're so caught up in their design that alternatives come across to them as being in some sense wrong, other times because they're kicking themselves in the butt for blindness but are bad at keeping their self-annoyance out of their interactions with others. (And I will also admit that at times I have had problems with the latter. I hope I've been getting better at catching myself and if necessary taking some deep breaths.)