gsp@ulysses.UUCP (08/26/83)
Regarding Markku Hakkinen note "Cog-eng or is it HF?, I would like to add my two cents worth. First, Human Factors (HF) to me is "the study of the factors that affect humans," especially if not exclusively in technical areas. In the past, when technology was synonymous with machinery, HF was knobs and dials research. Many people today, psychologists included, belittle the work done on making machinery work cooperatively with people. Those who have tried to do it know how hard it is to do, but anyone can appreciate something that fits like a glove and be annoyed by something that doesn't (how about your mother's tea cups?). The name "cognitive engineering" to my knowledge, was coined by Don Norman. I have no definitiion of his in front of me, but I think I am safe in saying that cognitive engineering is a sub-part of HF that deals with cognitive factors in dealing with technology (machines, and more recently, computer systems). Don's interests in cognitive engineering stem from his theoretical work on errors and what causes people to make them. He has strong interests in aviation safety, in the sane design of nuclear power plants (especially their controls), and, of course, in computer systems. By that reasoning, the discussion of terminal screen colors does not belong in net.cog-eng, but would in a human factors group. Similarly, net.cog-eng includes topics like designing control panels of stoves so that people don't make mistakes when turning on burners. Cognitive engineering is not restricted to human factors in computer systems. Ben Schneiderman formed the Software Psychology society after the appearance of his monumental book by the same name. For my purposes, such a newsgroup would be more in line with my interests than cognitive engineering in general. Perhaps this is true even for the person who created the news group. Since the formation of ACM Special Interest Group (SIG) on computer-human interaction (SIGCHI), Ben's group seems to have lost impetus, but then, I have not been looking. The formation of the a human factors news group is long overdue. I found that some issues of interest were discussed in net.works (work stations), fa.human-nets, and in the unix groups. Certainly, there has always been motivation to creating the right groups for the right topics. I think Markku Hakkinen was right in questioning the name of this group and in suggesting a broader base of HF groups. I disagree with his categorization of both human factors and of cognitive engineering. But this is quibbling. Here are the groups I wuld like to see: net.hf human factors (short so people wont mistype it) net.hf.soft HF software issues subgroup (esp. user-interfaces) net.hf.hard HF in hardware design (esp. terminals) "hf" might be replaced by another token, depending on your camp: UCSD hmi (human machine interaction) PARC chi (computer human interaction) but I prefer hf as it is generic and can expand into subgroups. Under this scheme, cog-eng goes away and is replaced by hf.soft. Discussions of issues in HF other than computers can be placed in net.hf or be placed in subgroups (eg: net.hf.control for control systems of planes and plants). I suspect that the average net user is primarily interested in the computer aspects. Now, who is going to change these names? Not me! I don't know how. Is there a Horton in the house? Gary Perlman BTL MH 5D-105 (201) 582-3624 ulysses!gsp
tugs@utcsrgv.UUCP (Stephen Hull) (08/27/83)
I can't help but think that the subdivision of net.cog-eng into several
new (newer?) newsgroups, based on hardware orientation, software orientation,
cognition orientation, control systems orientation, etc., etc. would be --
dare I say it? -- bad cognitive engineering.
I'm interested in pretty well all that is discussed or can be discussed here,
and I don't really care if the name of the newsgroup is net.pastrami;
conceiving of a newsgroup, attempting to find an appropriate name, and then
trying to judge appropriateness of submitted articles on the basis of that name
strikes me as a mite bass-ackwards. If I have an article to submit, I don't
want to indulge in any deep soul-searching to decide where to submit it, and if
I'm reading a newsgroup and I come upon an article I don't want to read --
well, I *do* have an 'n' key.
Let us never forget that the motto of the HAVK rot 13 (*) operating system,
before the Berkeley people got their hands on it, was:
Small is Beautiful
Amen.
(*) HAVK rot 13 is a trademark of Oryy Ynof rot 13.
steve hull
--
UUCP { linus, ihnp4, allegra, floyd, utzoo,
cornell, watmath, uw-beaver, ubc-vision }!utcsrgv!tugs
{ decvax, cwruecmp, duke, research }!utzoo!utcsrgv!tugs
Arpa utcsrgv!tugs@UW-BEAVERmark@umcp-cs.UUCP (08/27/83)
A. I like the name cognitive engineering. I was not aware that
Don Norman had coined it, but is catchy.
B. Ben Shneiderman did not form the Software Psychology Society after
the name of his book. The Software Psychology Society had been
meeting here in the Washington area for several years before Ben's
book. Ben was one of the three founding members (the others being
Bill Curtis of GE (now ITT) and Jim Foley of George Washington U.).
The term Software Psychology was coined by Tom Love, then of
GE, then ITT, now an independent consultant.--
spoken: mark weiser
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!mark
CSNet: mark@umcp-cs
ARPA: mark.umcp-cs@UDel-Relaynather@utastro.UUCP (08/30/83)
net.hf etc... I vote no.
Actually, I vote HELL NO.
The first time I saw "net.cog-eng" I figured it out right away, and
was delighted to see it. But "net.hf.soft?" What is it? Half fried
what?
Ed Nather