henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (07/16/87)
Speaking as an ex-reader of comp.cog-eng, more people would read it if it
wasn't full of cross-posted sludge that has nothing to do with human
factors. Perhaps it needs renaming.
--
Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henrypeterr@utcsri.UUCP (07/19/87)
From Henry Spencer: > Speaking as an ex-reader of comp.cog-eng, more people would read it if it > wasn't full of cross-posted sludge that has nothing to do with human > factors. Perhaps it needs renaming. As one of the people who helped create the group, I agree with Henry. The name is probably incorrect and elicits the wrong kind of postings. Perhaps comp.humfac? Even if that name means we get the occasional article about the placement of controls in aircraft cockpits, it would be much better than the current situation (and could even be interesting, as those concerns, the province of traditional industrial human factors, do have lessons for designers of user interfaces). So, I suggest that comp.cog-eng be deleted and comp.humfac be created. Peter Rowley, University of Toronto Computer Systems Research Institute peterr@csri.toronto.EDU, utcsri!peterr
daveb@geac.UUCP (Dave Brown) (07/20/87)
>From Henry Spencer: >> Speaking as an ex-reader of comp.cog-eng, more people would read it if it >> wasn't full of cross-posted sludge that has nothing to do with human >> factors. Perhaps it needs renaming. Agreed. Perhaps we also need a group for the cognition discussions, though... Comments, please? -- David (Collier-) Brown. | Computer Science Geac Computers International Inc., | loses its memory 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | (if not its mind) CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.
alee@utcsri.UUCP (07/20/87)
> From Henry Spencer: > > Speaking as an ex-reader of comp.cog-eng, more people would read it if it > > wasn't full of cross-posted sludge that has nothing to do with human > > factors. Perhaps it needs renaming. > > As one of the people who helped create the group, I agree with Henry. > The name is probably incorrect and elicits the wrong kind of postings. > Perhaps comp.humfac? Even if that name means we get the occasional > article about the placement of controls in aircraft cockpits, it would > be much better than the current situation (and could even be interesting, > as those concerns, the province of traditional industrial human factors, > do have lessons for designers of user interfaces). > > So, I suggest that comp.cog-eng be deleted and comp.humfac be created. > > Peter Rowley, University of Toronto Computer Systems Research Institute > peterr@csri.toronto.DU, utcsri!peterr Yes, in the last 6-8 months, the articles have definitely moved away from those addressing user interface, human factors, etc. My suggestion would be that if we plan to create a group that will better reflect the intended topics of discussion, I think a more appropriate name than comp.humfac is "comp.chi" or "comp.hci". These names are more indicative of the field. "chi" is the name of the conference (computer-human interaction) and "hci" is the commonly used name in the literature for the field (human-computer interaction). This does not preclude human factors materials and may in fact focus these materials to those that apply to computers. Alison Lee Computer Systems Research Institute University of Toronto Usenet: {linus, ihnp4, allegra, decvax, floyd}!csri!alee CSNET: alee@csri.toronto.edu ARPA: alee%toronto.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
dfile@ecsvax.UUCP (Dean File) (07/21/87)
In article <8305@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > Speaking as an ex-reader of comp.cog-eng, more people would read it if it > wasn't full of cross-posted sludge that has nothing to do with human > factors. Perhaps it needs renaming. > -- AMEN! I first started reading comp.cog-eng because someone suggested it was the proper place for discussions of user-interface issues. Now I'm almost at the point of unsubscribing because the discussions seem so remote from this very basic issue. As an application developer for users who must be assumed non-computer-literate (whatever that means in 1987!), discussions on this level would be much more helpful.
biep@cs.vu.nl (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) (07/22/87)
In article <5113@utcsri.UUCP> alee@utcsri.UUCP writes: >>> (Henry Spencer:) Perhaps (comp.cog-eng) needs renaming. >> (Peter Rowley:) Perhaps comp.humfac? >(Alison Lee:) "comp.chi" or "comp.hci". (me:) No, please let's find a name which is understandable also for all those who are not in the field, and which is (more or less) unambiguous. We have even already had problems with the "tech" in sci.philosophy.tech, as people didn't know whether it meant "technical" or "of technology" (the first). Nobody ever has to type in the names, as in rn normally the space bar brings you there right away, and otherwise /xxx, with xxx just some consecutive letters of the name. Whatever name, I vote against any abbreviation. (Also in the interests of whoever wonders what that newsgroup might be for) -- Biep. (biep@cs.vu.nl via mcvax) I utterly disagree with everything you are saying, but I am prepared to fight to the death for your right to say it. -- Voltaire
rjf@eagle.ukc.ac.uk (Robin Faichney) (07/22/87)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: In article <5108@utcsri.UUCP> peterr@utcsri.UUCP writes: >From Henry Spencer: >> Speaking as an ex-reader of comp.cog-eng, more people would read it if it >> wasn't full of cross-posted sludge that has nothing to do with human >> factors. Perhaps it needs renaming. > >As one of the people who helped create the group, I agree with Henry. >The name is probably incorrect and elicits the wrong kind of postings. >Perhaps comp.humfac? Even if that name means we get the occasional >article about the placement of controls in aircraft cockpits.. As someone very interested in user interfaces, and up to here with some of that ai stuff (sorry Steve), I agree too, but there's no need to risk articles on aircraft control placement - what's wrong with comp.hci (human-computer interaction) or comp.mmi (man-machine interface). These terms are already in common use. Robin
smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) (07/22/87)
In article <5108@utcsri.UUCP> peterr@utcsri.UUCP writes: > >So, I suggest that comp.cog-eng be deleted and comp.humfac be created. > I strongly agree. When I first entered the RN community, I though "cog-eng" had something to do with cognition and engineering. The idea of human factors never occurred to me. When I started reading the articles, this confusion was reinforced. Eventually, I unsubscribed because I seemed to be seeing the same material on comp.ai. A newsgroup for human factors is a good idea, but it should be more explicitly labeled as such.
kdq@pbhye.UUCP (Kip Quackenbush) (07/27/87)
In article <5108@utcsri.UUCP> peterr@utcsri.UUCP writes: > >So, I suggest that comp.cog-eng be deleted and comp.humfac be created. > I AGREE! -- Kip Quackenbush {inhp4!dual!ptsfa!pbhye!kdq} Pacific Bell I am schizophrenic and so am I 415-823-2508 Just Humm Baby
snoopy@doghouse.gwd.tek.com (Snoopy) (07/29/87)
In article <3244@venera.isi.edu> smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu.UUCP (Stephen Smoliar) writes: >In article <5108@utcsri.UUCP> peterr@utcsri.UUCP writes: >> >>So, I suggest that comp.cog-eng be deleted and comp.humfac be created. >> >I strongly agree. When I first entered the RN community, I though "cog-eng" >had something to do with cognition and engineering. The idea of human factors >never occurred to me. When I started reading the articles, this confusion >was reinforced. Eventually, I unsubscribed because I seemed to be seeing >the same material on comp.ai. A newsgroup for human factors is a good idea, >but it should be more explicitly labeled as such. It would seem obvious that a newsgroup for discussing human factors should have a name that humans can figure out! (Or is this another case of the shoemaker's children going barefoot?) Snoopy tektronix!doghouse.gwd!snoopy snoopy@doghouse.gwd.tek.com "And it's a middle-endian machine with trinary logic." "They would do that."
roberts@cognos.uucp (Robert Stanley) (07/30/87)
In article <5113@utcsri.UUCP> alee@utcsri.UUCP writes: >... I think a more appropriate name than comp.humfac is "comp.chi" or >"comp.hci". These names are more indicative of the field. I vote for comp.chi, which dovetails with SIGCHI of the ACM, but would settle for comp.hci. Either carries the flavour of the group well. I also suspect that it would attract considerably more attention than at present, especially given the success of this year's Toronto SIGCHI conference. -- Robert Stanley Compuserve: 76174,3024 Cognos Incorporated uucp: decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!roberts 3755 Riverside Drive or ...nrcaer!uottawa!robs Ottawa, Ontario Voice: (613) 738-1440 - Tuesdays only (don't ask) CANADA K1G 3N3
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/06/87)
A Harmonica factory? In article <5108@utcsri.UUCP> peterr@utcsri.UUCP writes: >So, I suggest that comp.cog-eng be deleted and comp.humfac be created. Doesn't anyone remember what a botch net.columbia was? Newsgroup names should be descriptive, not cryptic. How about "comp.human-factors"? Or if you want something cute: "comp.friendly" :->? -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!seismo!soma!uhnix1!sugar!peter (I said, NO PHOTOS!)
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/16/87)
> ...Doesn't anyone remember what a botch net.columbia was?
Well, actually, no. There was nothing wrong with net.columbia except for
the twits who kept asking if it shouldn't be renamed or merged with net.space.
(Its new name is the botch, actually -- sci.space.news would be much more
accurate than sci.space.shuttle.)
--
Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry