taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (03/24/87)
> 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. I work at a college where the primary microcomputer is the Macintosh. I can tell you from endless experience that the Macintosh operating system is no easier for the novice to understand than any other computer. I work with students who are very intelligent in most areas, but when it comes to computers, some of them are either too afraid of the machine or too uninterested to learn more than they absolutely have to in order to get their thoughts onto paper. In fact, most of the students use the Mac as merely electronic typewriters, never bothering to learn more about what the machine can do. Very few make the mental jump to realize that the machine can do more than just word process; indeed, I have a very hard time explaining to some of them that there are different programs for different purposes--they don't grasp the idea of what a program is. The point of this is that just making the Mac interface visually attractive and easy to use (for those who make the effort to learn how) is not enough. Similarly, I don't think that Dave's idea of the pictorial mail system will prompt any more people to use it. Dave's visual system would perhaps be easier for someone without English to use, but it would be an insult to those of us who have spent years learning and refining our written communication skills. Plus, there is still the problem of people who are too afraid to use a computer or too uninterested. Part of the problem is that many people don't know a thing about how computers work. Granted, not many people know exactly how a car works either but most people manage to drive the car. And when the car has a problem, there is always the mechanic to take it to. But, what happens when a person is busy composing on the computer and the computer suddenly has a problem? This sort of thing often happens late at night (in the case of a student trying to finish a paper), in a lonely dorm room with no one else around. If the student has no idea how the program and the computer operates, the student also has no idea of how to fix the problem, and more often than not, loses the work. This type of experience is extremely frustrating and dampens interest in even using the computer further. Or let's take another example of the secretary who constantly professes not to know anything about computers even though the secretary has had at least 6 hours of instruction on it. To relate this back to the E-mail discussion, it doesn't really matter how easy a mail system is to use; if a person has neither the interest nor the inclination to learn, the person won't use the system at all or won't use it efficiently or make use of all the options the system has to offer. My job is to instruct people in the use of computers. Part of that responsibility is to teach them enough about how the machines work so that they can solve problems on their own and hopefully realize other uses of the computer. While this seems to be an upward struggle most of the time, I still do not accept the idea that no one really *needs* to know how the computer works. Computers are, and will be, a large part of everyone's life (at least in the U.S.). I think people should understand their environment, and computers are only one facet of the environment. Of course most people don't need to know the intricate details, but they can certainly understand the general concept and understand what computers can and cannot do. >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... >etc, etc...... Suppose you had a an alien land in your back yard. The alien is friendly, but does not know English and is not aware of any human customs or procedures to solve human problems. It is impossible to teach the alien English because it can't make the necessary vocal sounds. And it's standard mode of communicating is equally impossible for you. So you try to come up with a way to communicate--you succeed, but then realize that you will have to tell the alien every single step along the way to solve any problem, since it has no knowledge of human actions. This is analogous to having a computer solve problems. We have to have the computers gain general knowledge of human actions, so we don't have to tell them every step of the way. In order to do this, massive amounts of programming in those "cryptic" languages has to be done, so that they will understand simple English. Or, you could always totally re-create computer design so that it understands simple English to begin with. I wish you luck in this endeavor. I disagree with your comment that computers nowadays are too hard to understand. (With the exception of IBM mainframes) We just got a VAX 8500 and it is a marvel in simplicity. The documentation is great. BUT you have to take the time to learn something. You must expect to take SOME time to learn things--even some household appliances require a quick look through the operating guide! I hold a BA in English Literature--I don't have any problem learning computer systems. It comes down to how much time and effort you are willing to put into it. Those "computer gurus" have put their time in learning the system, and they enjoy working with the machine. Star Ferrin