Pleasant@Rutgers (11/22/82)
HUMAN-NETS Digest Monday, 22 Nov 1982 Volume 5 : Issue 106
Today's Topics:
Publications - The Sholes Keyboard,
Technology - Ergonomic Design,
Computers and People - Video Games &
Cable TV and the First Amendment (3 msgs) &
Communications Breakthrough (3 msgs) &
Food for Thought - Communicate with a Turing Machine
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: vivace!rba.allegra at BRL-BMD
Date: 14 Nov 82 20:44:00 EST (Sun)
I thought human-nets readers might be interested in an article by
Don Norman and Diane Fisher that was just published in \Human
Factors/ (vol 24, pp. 509-519). They compared several different
keyboard layouts, and they found
That the Sholes [QWERTY] keyboard actually seems to be a
sensible design, superior to all of the alphabetical
arrangements we have studied, and only 5 to 10% slower than the
Dvorak keyboard,...
As is well known, letters which are frequently typed together are
separated on the Sholes keyboard. This turns out to be an advantage
since key strokes from alternate hands are faster than key strokes
from the same hand. Furthermore, they conclude
Our lesson is simply this: Do not waste time rearranging the
letter arrangement of the existing standardized keyboard.
Bob Allen
------------------------------
Date: 19 Nov 1982 1151-PST
From: UCLA-DESIGN at USC-ISIB
Subject: The physical side
Hello Human-netters!
GOOD NEWS.
The Office Environments Project of the UCLA Design Research Group
was created in July of this year specifically to address the
physical issues related to workstation design and effective office
planning. Its one thing to identify the many factors associated
with improving this work environment--and quite another to come up
with viable solutions and alternatives. We would like your input.
What are some improvements or alternatives to existing VDT design,
workstation furniture, lighting, seating, planning, storage,
communicating et al? We are aware that some issues are far greater
than simple "ergonomic" modifications in creating a more stress-free
and effective environment. What works well for you? What would you
like to see? What changes would you make if you could? What other
factors besides the physical work environment contribute to your
"getting things done and feeling good about it?"
The project is subcontracted by ARPA via the USC Information
Sciences Institute of Marina Del Rey. It consists of faculty and
graduate students from the colleges of Design and Architecture at
UCLA. Please direct any suggestions, comments, or questions to us
at <UCLA-DESIGN@ISI>. I look forward to hearing from you.
Good day,
Tom Capalety
------------------------------
Date: 15 Nov 1982 1733-EST
From: Larry Seiler <SEILER at MIT-XX>
Subject: Atari Games
There is (at least) one way in which Atari could legally restrict
the games that are produced for its machines. If (repeat, if) Atari
obtained a patent for their cartridge/machine interface, then anyone
who wants to use that interface must get a license from Atari, or
else be liable to lawsuit. I doubt that they did get a patent, or
else they wouldn't have to mention indecency in the suit. And while
there may not be anything in the Atari cartridge interface that is
patentable, most computer companies patent their bus architecture
when they come out with a new machine. That way, they can make a
(deserved) profit on the add-ons that other people manufacture. Or
close down people who make add-ons, if they choose (and if they are
willing to go to court on it).
Larry
------------------------------
Date: 16-Nov-82 10:39:13 PST (Tuesday)
From: Suk at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: TV and censorship
I am personally against TV censorship, ESPECIALLY with
regards to children. Children shouldn't be sheltered from
the seedier and less pleasant parts of life; if they don't
learn about things when they're little, they get into a
great deal of hassles when they're older.
You'd better censor the things your kids watch -- they're liable to
see something good or decent when you're not peeking over their
shoulder!
Stan Suk (-: _(smiling from the right?)
P.S. Are you really serious?
------------------------------
Date: 17 Nov 1982 0023-PST
From: Lynn Gold <FIGMO at KESTREL>
Subject: Re: TV and censorship
1) I neither have children nor intend to have them.
2) Yes, I'm serious. Coming from a "Moral Majority"-type
household where words like "F%&k" were never used into a rough
school in a rough neighborhood can lead to very painful results.
--Lynn
------------------------------
Date: 18 Nov 1982 1957-EST
From: Rachel Silber <SILBER at RUTGERS>
Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V5 #104
From: Lynn Gold <FIGMO at KESTREL>
Subject: TV and censorship
I am personally against TV censorship, ESPECIALLY with
regards to children. Children shouldn't be sheltered from
the seedier and less pleasant parts of life; if they don't
learn about things when they're little, they get into a
great deal of hassles when they're older.
I am opposed to adults censoring television, or any other medium, on
the "behalf" of other adults. However, there are more reasons for
censoring a child's television viewing than simply protecting the
child from unfortunate realities. For one thing, we assume that
adults are protective enough of their own interests that they will
not be overly manipulated by advertising that is against those
interests. I don't believe that the same assumption can be made
for a five year old being bombarded with messages to want toys
(which are often not as attractive in life as they are on the
screen) and candy (which is nutritionally bad).
Secondly, there are the possible educational effects of allowing
children to watch a lot of television. TV is, except in RARE
instances, a completely passive medium. It conditions them to
expect to "learn" by sitting back, being amused, and having an
attention span of a very few minutes.
Third, one does not have to be a "moral majority cretin" to object
strenuously to the values pushed by commercial television. For
example, the sitcom, The Facts of Life, was pretty blatant about
selling sex (and not even so much sex itself as the whole game of
pretending to be something one is not to please a boyfriend) to
junior high aged kids. I found the show to be offensive. One
can't watch very much television without running into stereotypic
portrayals of both men and women. If parents believe that part of
their job is to provide a value system for their children (I phrased
this carefully : I do not mean "force a value-system on their
children", I mean "provide them a model for ethical adult
behavior") then if they allow their children to watch any old thing
without guidance or comment, they are, at the very least sending a
double message.
Last, while I don't think there is much to be said for
over-protecting kids, given that one has a choice, most parents
would prefer to introduce the harsh realities of life in some
controlled way, and in a way that can be understood by a kid
without being frightening or over his/her head. TV takes away this
control.
Myself, I've got no TV and no kids either. When and if I ever have
both, I think it is my responsibility to at least be aware of what
they watch, and try to counteract the harm that will be done.
Rachel Silber
------------------------------
Date: 15 Nov 1982 11:42:37-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: re [tone-of-voice in graphics]
I ran across a variant of this some 20 years ago in, of all
places, READER'S DIGEST; the symbol -) was used to mark
tongue-in-cheek comments. For clarity I expanded it to ( -), with
(occasionally) ( - ) (less bulky on a typewriter with a half-space
key) for serious material; this prompted one punster to suggest
(- -) for treachery.
------------------------------
Date: 18 November 1982 08:58-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Communications Breakthrough -- sideways facial pictures
This may be a dumb question <-) but how do I remember which way to
turn my head? Also, it doesn't matter which way I turn my cap falls
off. Couldn't you find a way to add those digital comments in the
normal vertical orientation?
/\
/ \
/ \
--------
( O O )
!( .. )!
!!( -- )!!
!! wwww !!
!!/ ww \!!
/----/ \----\
! !
! ! ! !
(Yeah, I know, you can't tell whether that hair is exactly shoulder
length or is longer but hidden from view, and the cap isn't tall
enough.)
<Leave Silly Mode>
------------------------------
Date: 20 Nov 1982 0109-EST
From: Andrew Scott Beals <RMS.G.BANDY at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC>
Subject: someone otta keep track of ``communications breakthrough''
thingies. (i.e. @= for nuclear war messages)
or at least the new ones should be posted to HN -- i'd like to have
as full of a list as possible. it's been more than once that i've
been burned for losing humor in my messages...
-andy |-> (late night)
------------------------------
Date: 12 Nov 82 13:06-EST (Fri)
From: Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund.umass-coins@UDel-Relay>
Subject: Communicate with a Turing machine
At last night's meeting of the cognitive science group at UMASS
Glenn Iba and Dave Mcdonald presented an interesting proposition:
Turing Machines are not good models of the kind of behavior that one
can get from a computer, since it is incapable of interacting with
the real-world in real-time.
Any description of the activities of a computer, should include that
of its user and the environment it contains. But this sort of
simulation of the real-world (thermodynamics, dissipative
structions, etc.) cannot be achieved in the simple model of a turing
machine, unless you claim that all possible future events are
encoded on the input tape, for the turing machine to compute on.
Somehow, the generating of this prophetical tape is less that
satisfying.
Thoughts?
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************