taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (03/11/87)
A disturbing trend that I've noticed in some of the recent postings to this group is that people are simultaneously equating computer literacy with literacy and also glossing over the larger problem of the class- structuring they're imposing. I'd like to spend some time here to talk about both these subjects. ** Literacy Versus Computer Literacy ** It is a common misconception among both the people within the computer industry and those on the outside that computer literacy is a superset of literacy. I would like to argue that they are not at all related in all but the most superficial sense. First, let's look at what the word literacy means, to give us some sort of anchor: literacy: 1. able to read and write 2. literary [of or relating to literature / versed in literature - well read] - polished, lucid. While these might be casually tossed into the same definition in the Merriam Webster dictionary I got this from, I think they are talking about some fundamentally different things and in fact that this is all part of the same definition indicates just how widespread this confusion is. In a nutshell being able to read and write has *nothing* to do with being able to come across lucidly and polished. To consider them facets of the same thing is to reject the potential for the 'uneducated' to be considered as equals in society. Similarly, this definition presupposes that to be 'literate' one has to be well read in 'the literature'. I disagree with this too - some of the most lucid and brilliant people I've known haven't read much of anything by way of 'the classics' or 'the literature'. But rather than berating this point, how does it relate to computer literacy? An interesting question indeed. The common conception of Computer Literacy is that it somehow measures the ability of the person to *program* the computer. With the state of technology and user interfaces and all today perhaps this is actually a reasonable measure, but I think that the fundamental concept is something more akin to: computer literacy is the ability to get the job done. This means that if a person can use the computer in a manner that allows them to be completely ignorant of the workings of the machine, that it isn't a bad thing. Quite the contrary, in fact - for the computer to be accepted as another tool in society, another utility, it *MUST* have the ability for people to use it without having to understand the ramifications of what they do and without having knowledge of how the task is actually accomplished. There are many analogies in our society - consider, for example, microwave ovens. Most of the people I know have one at home, but I'll bet that no-one could coherently (or, dare I say it? lucidly and in a polished manner) explain how it works. Or Compact Disk players. Or Automobiles. And on and on. As our artifacts have become more complex there has been less and less need for an individual to really understand how things work. So with this in mind, let's consider the comparision between literacy and computer literacy. In the context of the recent discussion, one could almost define computer literacy as the ability to communicate via a computer. For now let's just accept this as a more specific working definition. As we have seen and discussed, the limited bandwidth of computer communications systems (e.g. mail and conferencing) has raised some problems with people trying to communicate. There just isn't enough space to transmit all the elements of communication that we commonly associate with talking to a person or group, including visual cues, verbal cues, and so on. So what has happened is that we've evolved a purely text-based system that relies on a number of iconographic symbols to transmit limited non-text information (e.g. asterisks around words, etc). With this context we've come to find that those people who can express themselves by writing clearly tend to come across best. This isn't at all suprising. >From this perspective we can see that computer literacy, in the sense of electronic communication, is indeed a part of literacy. Simply put: if you can't write, you can't effectively use computers to communicate. But what is wrong here is that we're assuming that this is the way it will always be. Yet we've discussed multi-media communications systems, and have had someone even talk about convincing artists and musicians to use computers as a way to communicate back and forth. In twenty years I'll be able to sketch a drawing on my screen (or tablet, or ??) and send it to you. No words will be associated with it. I will be able to send it by flipping through my list of faces until I find yours and saying "yes" when the computer asks me "send it to Debra?". You will receive it by the computer telling you "Hey! New mail from Dave!" and you will be able to actually see it by simply flipping through the stack of incoming mail and pressing the part of the screen that displays my message. To print it you'll be able to simply say "print it" or drag it across the screen to the little printer picture. In this context there is really nothing that we need English for, or any written language, for that matter. And as a consequence there is no need to be 'literate' to be able to function very well with computers (e.g. to be computer literate). And this is not only a good thing, but is something that we MUST work towards. Before computers really are a positive part of life they must be demonstrably better than existing systems at letting people communicate and get tasks done. And having to learn English (for example) is not the right move for a poor family in the third world, or a handicapped person, or any one of a large class of people. We MUST keep these people in mind as we move forward in the computer industry and we really need to disassociate the idea of literacy and knowing English from the help that computers offer us in almost all facets of our lives. ** The Computer Literati ** Still looking at the dictionary, Mirriam Webster defines literati as: literati: 1. the educated class 2. men of letters In the computer world the literati are those few that can rummage around in the internals of an operating system and solve the problems, or that can create new software that is better and faster that the existing systems. Traditionally this has been done with cryptic programming languages like "C" and "Pascal" that are quite a few steps removed from how one would describe the problem solution to a friend who spoke English (we're not even going to consider the problems when you have only gestures and non-verbal language available). >From the very beginning, computers have encouraged a society made up of a number of different classes, much more so than any other field. Even today, after thirty plus years of work in making computers friendly and accessable to anyone, it's still quite tough to accomplish tasks with the machine, and even more difficult to teach it new solutions. So we have classes of computer users, from the so-called naive user to the knowledgeable user, to the expert, to the 'wizard' and 'guru'. There are a number of people who would argue that this structure is necessary to allow people to have a chance to learn a lot about a specific area (for example 'networking protocols') but I disagree. The problem here is that we're saying something to the effect of "look how complex this situation is! We'll need lots of people to understand it". Instead if we have the attitude of "look how complex this situation is! Let's simplify it!" we might just find that as time goes on everyone gets on to more of an equal footing. I believe that this is what the Apple Macintosh has done, in a very small way. They've taken the arcane operating system commands that are found, say, in MS-DOS, and abstracted them to the point where people can function quite well without ever having any understanding of the fundamental design and organization of the computer. Furthermore, people can now write letters without having to 'learn the editor' and so on. Consider the complexity and power of the Macintosh versus the size of the documentation that it comes with... Let's tie this in with the previous discussion of computer literacy though...as we have seen, many people have associated literacy with computer literacy, thereby implying that there is a 'computer literati' or elite group of people who 'know' computers. While there is no disagreement that there is indeed a group of people in our society that 'know computers' better than the rest, the implications of the word literati and the concept of an elite are disturbing. Consider being an earnest but poor student in the third world wanting to learn about computer systems. The limitation isn't in the hardward or software - that's relatively easy to obtain (although it will most certainly not be the latest and greatest systems). The difficulty is in figuring out what it all means. It is an example of a larger problem of the tradeoff between the confusion of jargon and the necessity of being able to express specific technical ideas succinctly. Nonetheless, computer systems are too hard to understand and are very hard to use to communicate, something done by *everyone* and therefore something almost certainly to become one of the most common uses of a computer *if it's possible*. And the 'computer literati' solution is to come up with better protocols or faster phone lines, rather than systems that allow people to use the computers without spending years figuring it all out. Class structures shoud be an area of great concern. We are all getting a bit smug due to our being part of the computer literati and are forgetting the rest of the world out there. I look forward to more discussion on this. -- Dave Taylor --
martin@srucad.sc.intel.com (Martin Harriman) (03/13/87)
The arguments you presented on literacy (and computer literacy) seem to me to be amazingly naive. I thought I would present some answers to the points you bring up. You begin by claiming that literacy has nothing to do with the ability to read and write, and, in turn, that the ability to read and write (or speak--it is not clear from your rather confused prose) has little to do with "literature." This is obviously untrue; your posting is one of the best counterexamples I could ask for. Your inability to use the English language has seriously damaged your ability to convince me that what you are saying is worth reading. You go on to suggest that iconography or picture writing is the direction in which we must be headed. I suggest that this is pure fox-with-no-tail; because you have difficulty with conventional literacy, you are convinced that there must be "some better way"--and that the rest of the world will follow you to this pictographic utopia. Literacy has several thousand years of history. Picture writing has always been an available alternative; as I'm sure you're aware, written language apparently evolved from picture writing (several times, in fact). History suggests that everyone, everywhere found literacy preferable to illiteracy; there are no instances of societies choosing to abandon "literacy" for the sort of primitive iconography you are proposing. Even the pictographic writing systems show a tendency towards "literacy," with complex grammatical encodings added to the basic picture systems. I suggest that this is because the literary language is a much more powerful system for communicating meaning than iconography. People have been able to communicate more subtle and powerful ideas in language than they have by picture drawing and pointing. Are you seriously arguing that we will throw away the most powerful (and, potentially, accurate) form of communication we have developed? I see no evidence that the illiterate can be made "full citizens" of any world order, even with the best will in the world. Being denied access to such a powerful tool will always be a handicap. We should certainly do what we can to accomodate the illiterate, but literacy will always be, necessarily, a considerable advantage. You argue, as well, that familiarity with literature is useless in developing rhetorical (or literary) ability. I suggest that you study the history of rhetoric and literature more closely if you seriously hold this view. I will agree that it is just barely possible for someone to develop an expressive rhetoric in a vacuum--but most literate, articulate writers got that way by *reading* as well as writing. Consider how likely you are to learn to speak in an environment where you do not hear the spoken language. Language is consensus, written language as much as spoken, and the only way to understand that consensus and use it is to see it in action. It is true that great writers have extended the language--but they did so in an existing context. The written language is unlikely to disappear or become less important. You may be frustrated by written English, but your personal frustration has nothing to do with the history or future of literacy (you may take comfort from the fact that frustration with literacy is as universal as literacy itself--I have citations from sources as diverse as an Egyptian scribe, a Roman author, a Carolingian abbot, and (innumerable) modern writers). Nobody said it was easy--but everyone seems to have concluded that it is worthwhile. --Martin Harriman martin@srucad.sc.intel.com
edwards@unix.macc.wisc.edu (Mark Edwards) (03/16/87)
I think you are missing the point. While the dictionary does give the
definition you base your arguments on, I do not think the word literacy as
used in the sense argued is necessarily correct.
When one refers to literacy and computer literacy, I think that they are
refering to fundamental skills necessary for a productive life in the society.
Presumably if one is not literate, meaning that one cannot read or write, he
could not be a mailman or journalist. On the same lines for being computer
literate, if one had access to a computer, but did not use it in the following
case. One is given a long list of numbers to add, and the person did it by
hand. Clearly there may be reasons why. But say the person had time
constraints in which to accomplish this task, and he was terribly poor at
adding numbers and getting a realistic number. I would say that this person
is computer illiterate.
I do not think being computer literate means to be able to program a
computer, only to have sufficent knowledge inorder to use it. The same applies
for being literate. He does not have to be well read, or need to be able to
write persuasively, only to be able to read and write (perhaps only at the
6 grade level).
There are probably also different levels of literacy and computer literacy.
They probably depend upon knowledge levels. A Ph.D in CS, should be more
*literate* in CS then the BS or the MS. The MS in CS should be more literate
then the BS ( this is not always the case however).
In short literacy involves the pratical knowledge and use of some basic
tools where needed. These are basic tools needed for survival in the modern
world. And therefore it seems obvious that computer literacy is quite possibly
a superset of literacy.
markJimDay.Pasa@Xerox.COM (03/19/87)
Dave, It's true that as our artifacts have become more complex there has been less need for the user to understand how things work, and I would define computer literacy as the ability to communicate with a computer to accomplish a given task. The use of a word processor or spreadsheet shouldn't require familiarity with binary arithmetic, TTL chips, or Fortran. If it does, then the software isn't very user friendly. It's also true that most software packages for electronic mail and conferencing don't provide much in the way of graphic or vocal cues. In most cases this is probably a deliberate design feature rather than a limitation of the technology. The current state of the art will certainly support the transmission of digitized graphics and speech -- there's no need to wait 20 years. But, as you say, the speed of transmission of such information is limited by the bandwidth of the medium. For electronic mail, speed of transmission probably isn't an important factor from the user's point of view. However, multi-megabyte messages might strain the data-transmission capacity of a given network, and the availability of storage space for the queue of incoming messages is an important consideration. So the inclusion of graphics and speech in electronic mail might not be cost-effective utilization of network bandwidth. One gets what one is willing to pay for. There are many computer systems that use graphics and non-keyboard input devices such as touch screens or mice. Some such systems are designed for users who don't necessarily understand computer technology and don't necessarily read or speak English. These systems work surprisingly well, and there will probably be more of them in the future. User-friendly systems for the non-programmer can be implemented even without graphics. For example, the cities of Glendale and Pasadena, California have recently automated the card catalogs of their public libraries. The on-line interface is via CRT screens and conventional keyboards. By the use of displayed menus and simple prompts, the inexperienced user can access the catalog and search for a book by title, author, or subject. The user can also determine the Dewey Decimal code of a given book and whether it is currently in the central library or any of the branch libraries. If the book has been checked out, the user is told when the book is due to be returned to the library. The automated catalog system works quite well and is often used by people who know nothing about computers. Checking books in and out is done via bar-code reader, but library patrons still have to read the books the old fashioned way -- one word at a time. -- Jim Day JimDay.Pasa@Xerox, I w
jsl@potomac.UUCP (John Labovitz) (03/19/87)
Dave Taylor writes: > [...] this definition presupposes that to be 'literate' one has to > be well read in 'the literature'. I disagree with this too - some > of the most lucid and brilliant people I've known haven't read much > of anything by way of 'the classics' or 'the literature'. Since someone has already disagreed with this point, I just thought I'd say that I agree with you, Dave. Although reading "the classics" (or whatever you think might be literature) might give you some kind of style to pattern yourself after, one might just as easily be able to write clearly without ever reading anything "worthwhile." It's all a matter of style. > In twenty years I'll be able to sketch a drawing on my screen (or > tablet, or ??) and send it to you. No words will be associated with > it. I will be able to send it by flipping through my list of faces > until I find yours and saying "yes" when the computer asks me "send > it to Debra?". You will receive it by the computer telling you > "Hey! New mail from Dave!" and you will be able to actually see it > by simply flipping through the stack of incoming mail and pressing > the part of the screen that displays my message. To print it you'll > be able to simply say "print it" or drag it across the screen to the > little printer picture. Twenty years? The technology is here right now! Later in your article you mention a Macintosh. Using a Mac, with pretty minimal programming, this could be done quite easily. In fact, I'm writing a mail program for the Mac that is going to logon to the Unix system, download all the new mail, give me a list of what's there, let me read certain messages, etc., etc., etc... But instead of typing "28 <return>" to read message 28, and hitting spacebar to go to the next screen (nothing personal against Elm, Dave :-), I would simply click on the icon representing message 28, and use the scroll bars to move thru the message. And if I wanted to send (or forward) a message, I'll have a little list of icons that represent people I'd normally send things to. I click on the icon that represents J. Random, and the message goes to him. The graphics part would not be difficult either. A special header, identifying the message as non-text, would flag the mailer to parse out the graphics and display the pretty pictures (and, of course, let me file them away so I can keep them forever). > In this context there is really nothing that we need English for, or any > written language, for that matter. True, if you are sending ideas that can be represented visually instead of verbally. An interesting example for this: my brother has learning disabilities. A recent test he was given found that he does very well in visual activities and spatial relationships, but not so well in verbal activities. A graphic mail system would allow him (and many other people) to communicate their ideas without having to resort to verbal (and therefore less clear, in their case) communication. And, as you mention, the message would be more understandable by people who did not read English (or whatever language you might be speaking in) well or at all. Someone needs to sit down and use all this technology we have lying around (high speed networks, graphic interfaces (Macs), etc.) and construct a good, public, accessible *idea* network that anyone could use. John Labovitz ..!{rlgvax,seismo}!bdmrrr!potomac!jsl
taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (03/24/87)
In his reply to the posting on the subject of Literacy vs. Computer Literacy by Dave Taylor, it seems that Martin Harriman is missing the point. It is true that in present-day society literacy is an absolute necessity for effective communication, since a very large portion of our communication is carried by the written word. I feel, however, that is necessary to examine the reasons for this. The question is, then, do we need to be literate (i.e. able to use written communication 'well') because written communication is the *best* mode of communication, or just because it is the only form of communication presently available in many situations? It is my contention that the latter is the case, and that with the wider availability of higher bandwidth modes of communication will reduce (but almost certainly not wipe out) the overwhelming advantage the literate enjoy over the illiterate. Martin is correct in that current alphabets all evolved from picture writing. This was not, however, due to the inherant advantages of alphabetic writing over iconography. Writing was developed as a method of recording information, and the original picture writing was cumbersome because it used up a great deal of space. Scribes only had room to store so many clay tablets. Another problem with iconography is that it bears little relation to the spoken language that everybody knows, and hence some confusion can exist as to the interpretation of such communication. An alphabetic system in which the words bear a one-to-one correspondence to spoken words will be interpreted and evolve on a parallel path to spoken language. *Writing is just an attempt to store spoken language* And up until now, due to technological factors, alphabetic writing, be it ever so cryptic, narrow of bandwidth, and lacking in nuance, has been the only practical way of storing language, and hence ideas. Due to this narrow bandwidth, the more adept have developed techniques have developed methods of encoding nuance into their writing which are not needed, and hence not used in the spoken language in which other, more natural techniques exist. We do not speak as we write, and vice versa. A speech which is merely read is usually dead boring, and one who writes as s/he speaks runs the risk of being misunderstood. Thus developed that class of people who were particularly adept at expressing themselves in written language, the literati. Iconography, was not abandoned completely, however. It was merely superceded as a method of storing the written **WORD**. I challange anyone to describe an electronic curcuit using words more succinctly and clearly than the most illiterate engineer can using the standard iconographs. This and many other applications are simply beyond words, written or spoken. This is where Dave Taylor had a good point: computer literacy is an unfortunate expression in that it is derived from the Latin for letters. It is, however, currently used to denote the ability to get things done with computers. While using a computer requires a whole host of arcane knowledge, the computer literati will be a small and select group. While the only method of computer communication is via the written word, the computer literate in that sense will be restricted to the "letter literate". When, however, we have voice mail, it will be a whole new ball game . Those who express themselves best in spoken words will have an advantage, and this group will certainly not be restricted to those who use written words well. (Ronald Reagan is a very good example of a person who has a consummate command of spoken communication techniques, but has, to my knowledge, shown little evidence of being a 'man of letters'.) Delivery rather than precision seems to be what is required here. (Obviously both classes must have the ability to use words, since both modes of communication use words.) Improvements in the man/machine interface as can be seen, for example in the Macintosh, and the widening of the communication interface to include iconographs, voice, and even video recordings will go a long way to allowing those who are not literate in the strict sense of the word to become 'computer literate'. However, just as a person who speaks 5 languages has a greater chance of communicating effectively with speech, one who can make use of all modes of communication via computer will obviously have the advantage. All the same, I believe that one who can speak well, draw well, and presents well on the video screen will beat the 'man of letters' hands down. Mark Williams.
taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (03/24/87)
I'd like to take a moment (or two) to respond to Dave Taylor's discussion on `Literacy versus Computer Literacy'. Literacy, as the word is used by most people, means a minimum, but general, knowledge or competency with a language. We would expect a literate person to be able to read a newspaper and sign his or her name, but not necessarily to be able to give eloquent impromptu discourse on the influence of Cicero on P. B. Shelley. Computer literacy, if it means anything at all, signifies a minimum general knowledge of, or competency with, computers. What exactly constitutes minimum general competency, however, is hard to say. For example, I have a degree in electrical and computer engineering and understand computer architecture enough to know that computers are made from PC boards, which contain IC chips, which contain registers and flip-flops, which are made from logic gates, which are made up of transistors.... et cetera. Presented with an unfamiliar computer, however, I may not even be able to find the ON/OFF switch, let alone `get the job done' with it. Unfamiliar operating systems would also pose a problem. Does this make me `computer illiterate?' Is there such a thing as `VAX-11 literacy' distinct from `IBM 3600 literacy' distinct from `ECLIPSE/MV 10000 literacy,' et cetera? I maintain that computer literacy is NOT an ability to perform a specified task with a computer, but a general understanding of what a computer is and what it can do. Based on that understanding, a computer literate person can, in time, learn to perform specific tasks on specific computers. (Other tasks, such as operating microprocessor-controlled household appliances, may not require this literacy.) Similarly, an english-literate person may or may not immediately comprehend a specific word or specific sentence, but given time, (s)he can look up unfamiliar words, pay particular attention to punctuation, and eventually interpret the sentence. When someone `knows' English, what they know is the syntax, the rules for forming sentences and conjugating verbs; they don't necessarily know every word in the dictionary. Similarly, when someone `knows' computers, what they know isn't PDP-8 architecture or how system calls are handled in UNIX. Rather, they possess general knowledge of `computer syntax': what accumulators and memory do, what assembly language and microcode are, and the role of operating systems. To suggest that computer literacy involves the ability to use a system without understanding it is dangerously misleading. It confuses familiarity with a specific machine with general knowledge and understanding, and blurs the distinction between `literacy' and `proficiency'. I also felt that Dave's article served to obfuscate rather than clarify the distinction between english literacy and computer literacy due to an unfortunate emphasis on electronic communication. Dave envisions a future in which people communicate with pictures over computer networks without any need for words. He seems to think that computers will ultimately render not only English, but all written language obsolete. I don't buy it for one minute. The ability to send pictures over networks is fine, but to suggest that pictures alone will convey thoughts better than writing is tantamount to saying that our ancestors who drew pictograms on cave walls communicated better than we do today! (Ever notice that all newspapers accompany their photos with captions?) While it is true that computers can be used to communicate, knowing about computers has little to do with knowing how to communicate. Language, whether spoken or written, English or Arabic, Swahili or AMSLAN, is the essence of communication. If you do not know how to communicate, computers will not help you. Neither will cordless telephones, ham radios, or owning your own newspaper or TV station. I find Dave's objection to poor or handicapped people having to learn a language utterly incomprehensible. To communicate, one must know a language. Computers can never replace language. Computers are, at most, an efficient medium for transmitting language. On the other hand, I agree wholeheartedly with Dave's concern for ergonomics and simpler user interfaces. Computers will not be useful in communication or any other area if people are intimidated from using them. Computer designers need to design computers for people other than computer designers! But let us recognize that no computer, no matter how easy it is to use, will enable people with poor language skills to communicate well, any more than it will feed the hungry or eliminate disease. Further, let's not confuse proficiency with a particular computer tool with general knowledge of what makes computers tick. I, for one, am not disturbed by the concept of a `computer-elite', so long as access to computers and computer-controlled devices is not limited to that group. After all, we live in an age of specialists. I am more upset by the `computer-utopians' who see computers as something more than tools, and hold out false hopes of using them to solve all of the world's problems. We who work with computers must help others to put them in perspective. We must warn people about those who, like the `Star-Wars' advocates, propose technological solutions to fundamentally human problems such as illiteracy and war. I apologize for the length of this article, but I didn't have enough time to write a shorter one. I also apologize to Dave Taylor if I've misinterpreted his views. Bruce A. Sesnovich sesnovich%dgloki.uucp@wjh12.harvard.edu
taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (03/26/87)
A tad bit more on the subject. I've enjoyed the postings, and I especially like those which present the concept of understanding what is being done. I made mention of an invitation I was given to speak on a panel for BARRET (something like Bay Area Regional Educational Technology or something). I was going to play Devil's Advocate in favor of "programming as computer literacy" or "programming as Latin" (quote from a friend's wife). Since I have not heard from those guys, let me instead present here one instance which causes me concern. During the release of the film, "Wargames," I happen to read two different campus newspaper reviews of the film. The first was from UCSC, and the second from Stanford (I give these names to be truthful, not to slander these institutions). Both made mention of the techniques used by Matt Broderick's character to break into different computer systems. What's interesting were the observations of the two reviewers and myself: the system cracker used a simple sequential search of all possible telephone prefixes: the reviewer from UCSC said just that: sequential search (we both saw that), but it surprised me that the Stanford reviewer did not see this, and ascribed the generation of phone numbers as technological magic (could not understand how it was done). Frankly, I would fear for some who could not see this (are students getting a good education for the money paid at SU?). What kinds of people are being turned out in (liberal arts) educational institutions who might be unable to see something I saw, and I know lots of little kids could see, but their parents, and others can't. This worries me. Basically, I am against `apparent' technological "magic." Literacy is a requirement for free people, and I hope computers would be minimally used as agents of evil (oversimplification, but enough). --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center