Normalizing Data

Thanks Matt. I really appreciate you pointing that out.

A lot of it comes down to knowing my audience. I'm not teaching a college computer science course where students are expected to memorize the normal forms and all the associated terminology. Most of my students are small business owners, office managers, and people who just need to build a database that solves a real-world problem.

To be honest, I don't remember spending much time learning all of the formal normalization terminology myself. I probably read about it in books like the Access Bible and other classics back in the '90s, but my brain has always gravitated toward the concepts instead of the vocabulary. I learned, "This is the right way to structure a database," more than, "This is Third Normal Form."

I'm the same way with history. Ask me about World War II, and I'll tell you it happened in the 1940s. The American Revolution? The 1770s. I couldn't tell you the exact dates when every event started and ended, but I remember what happened, why it happened, and the lessons we can learn from it. That's how my brain works. Likewise, I couldn't tell you off the top of my head which normal form is which, but I remember the concepts behind good database design, and that's what I try to pass along to my students.

That's pretty much how I teach today. Instead of saying, "Don't do this because it violates Third Normal Form," I explain the practical reasons why it'll cause problems later. I think people remember the why a lot better than the jargon.

Thanks again for the kind words. I'm glad that approach came through, and I appreciate you taking the time to point it out.

That is EXACTLY it: Access is built for "people who just need to build a database that solves a real-world problem" and we need Richard to make it all make sense so we can build what we need.