peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (08/27/83)
I've only seen the message from Gary Perlman on the name of this group, but
I think I can guess at the message he replied to. Here's my response:
The long description of this group, as proposed in net.news.group and
favourably responded to, is a discussion of "psychology and especially
cognitive science applied to the design of computer systems". As far
as I can remember, all the matters raised so far have fit that description
(even the screen colour question-- a matter of perceptual psychology)
or have been closely related (e.g. the priorities of systems designers
with respect to novices, casual users, and experts). So it appears that
we have a reasonable 12 word description of this group. Sadly, we also need
a <=10 character name for it.
When I polled people about creating this group, I suggested "net.psych"
but it was rejected because it is too broad; ditto for "human-fac". "chi"
was thought to be too cryptic, though accurate. "cog-sci" doesn't reflect
the applied aspect. "cog-eng" has a few points in its favour: it's an
established term, it stresses cognition, and it suggests an engineering
discipline. "psych-eng" would better fit the description, but it is not an
established term. There are problems with "cog-eng": it looks and sounds
horrible, and it doesn't restrict the group to discussing computer systems,
as has been pointed out by Gary Perlman. This doesn't bother me personally,
as I think that the few articles not dealing with computer system design
could be both very interesting and not-too-indirectly applicable to computers.
As for creating other groups, if the demand is there, I'm all for it. I
suggest that someone who wants a "net.ergonomics" to discuss the more
physical aspects of man/machine design (incl. possibly screen and keyboard
questions) poll the net for support. If there is support, let's create
the group and see if there's traffic. If so, we could change to "humfac.sw"
and "humfac.hw", if that's what most people want (though I'd prefer cog-eng
and ergonomics myself). I do echo Steve Hull's comments, though, that
boxing off little topics at this time may well be counter-productive.
A discussion on, say, the keystroke model applied to a particular keyboard
might meander between cogn. eng. and ergonomics areas, and there are probably
better examples of such interdisciplinary topics (which are certainly not to
be discouraged.)
peter rowley, University of Toronto Department of C.S., Ontario Canada M5S 1A4
{cornell,watmath,ihnp4,floyd,allegra,ubc-vision,uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!peterr
{cwruecmp,duke,linus,decvax,research}!utzoo!utcsrgv!peterr