mark@intek01.UUCP (Mark McWiggins) (06/16/89)
Chuck Musciano: > > This is on a tangent, but my discussion about my programming techniques > started me thinking (always dangerous :-). When I am faced with a problem > to be solved (requiring some programmed solution) I sort of think about it > initially, and then don't think about it. Sometime later, maybe days, maybe > weeks, the full solution just pops into my head, and I sit down and type all > the code in. If I try to force the issue, and type in the code before I > am ready, the results are usually disastrous. If I am patient, I usually > wind up with an elegant solution. I've never been this systematic about it, but it works a lot the same way for me. Not just programming: I'm an amateur standup comic, and I get my best stuff in the shower, or just lying in bed Saturday morning. I don't know what a design method based on this would look like, but I can imagine a great name for it: the Musciano Method, a.k.a. "Goof off 'til you Get It." Mark McWiggins Integration Technologies, Inc. (Intek) 1400 112th Ave. SE #202 Bellevue WA 98004 (206) 455-9935 uunet!intek01!mark
grudin@sundown.ACA.MCC.COM (Jonathan Grudin) (06/17/89)
From article <206@intek01.UUCP>, by mark@intek01.UUCP (Mark McWiggins): > Chuck Musciano: >> >> When I am faced with a problem >> to be solved (requiring some programmed solution) I sort of think about it >> initially, and then don't think about it. Sometime later, maybe days, maybe >> weeks, the full solution just pops into my head, and I sit down and type all >> the code in. If I try to force the issue, and type in the code before I >> am ready, the results are usually disastrous. If I am patient, I usually >> wind up with an elegant solution. > > I've never been this systematic about it, but it works a lot the same way > for me. Not just programming: I'm an amateur standup comic, and I get > my best stuff in the shower, or just lying in bed Saturday morning. > > Mark McWiggins The topic of "incubation" has been somewhat controversial in cognitive psychology, with some holding that you probably really do consciously attend to the problem in the interim, but in short bursts that you don't recall. Among the anecdotes on the subject the most extreme may be Bertrand Russell, who claimed that he wrote entire books that way: he would decide to write a book on a topic, give it a little thought, then not think about it for months, at which point it woule "emerge." (I hope this gets posted. My first effort appeared to be rejected because I quoted more information than I contributed. As a relatively new contributor I was unaware of this feature, though it wouldn't surprise me if it has been discussed on cog-eng, since it seems a rather dubious bit of cognitive engineering to me, if it is true. Anyway, having said this, this message is long enough to make it...) Jonathan Grudin
warner@s3dawn.ARPA (Ken Warner) (06/18/89)
In article <206@intek01.UUCP> mark@intek01.UUCP (Mark McWiggins) writes: >Chuck Musciano: >> When I am faced with a problem...I sort of think about it... >> Sometime later, maybe days, maybe weeks, the full solution just pops into >>my head, Mark McWiggins >I've never been this systematic about it, but it works a lot the same way >my best stuff in the shower, or just lying in bed Saturday morning. Sometimes I will go to bed with an unsolved programming problem rattling around in my head and wake up with a complete solution. It's as if I dreamt the solution. Ken Warner
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (06/19/89)
Chuck Musciano: > When I am faced with a problem...I sort of think about it... > Sometime later, maybe days, maybe weeks, the full solution just pops into In article <206@intek01.UUCP> mark@intek01.UUCP (Mark McWiggins) writes: >I've never been this systematic about it, but it works a lot the same way >my best stuff in the shower, or just lying in bed Saturday morning. In article <1751@scubed.UUCP>, warner@s3dawn.ARPA (Ken Warner) writes: > Sometimes I will go to bed... and wake up with a complete solution. It's > as if I dreamt the solution. I wonder what Julian Jaynes would say about this? (Julian Jaynes is a psych-type who claims that *most* thought is unconscious, and in fact that consciousness as we know it developed fairly recently in history.) -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.
kent@sunfs2.camex.uucp (Kent Borg) (06/19/89)
In article <1751@scubed.UUCP> warner@s3dawn.UUCP (Ken Warner) writes: >In article <206@intek01.UUCP> mark@intek01.UUCP (Mark McWiggins) writes: >>Chuck Musciano: >>> When I am faced with a problem...I sort of think about it... >>> Sometime later, maybe days, maybe weeks, the full solution just pops into >>>my head, Mark McWiggins >>I've never been this systematic about it, but it works a lot the same way >>my best stuff in the shower, or just lying in bed Saturday morning. > >Sometimes I will go to bed with an unsolved programming problem rattling around >in my head and wake up with a complete solution. It's as if I dreamt the >solution. > >Ken Warner This also works with the `simple' task of remembering something. "What is the name of...?" "Hmmm." <think>, <Think>, <think>, <Think> "Well, it'll come to me." I suggest that the crucial part of this is the seemingly fruitless "<think>, <Think>, <think> <Think>". If you don't do that part it *won't* come to you later (at least not with me). It seems to me that the initial thinking sensitizes me to what I want, then, while doing something else, my brain `bumps into' the answer and out it pops. Why this might also work with problem solving is harder to guess at. It almost seems like the initial thinking `forks off' a background task which keeps working. Except I don't like that explaination. First, I am always suspicious of attempts to explain the brain by saying it is like a computer. Second, I think maybe it *is* quite like the memory example. By thinking about the problem initially your brain might be abstracting the puzzle, turning it into the stuff of pure thoughts (God knows what that is). Being now the stuff of pure thoughts, it is compatible with the stuff you get from other activities. It is now in the same relm as taking out the garbage and trying to figure out how to open the kitchen door without dropping everything. While doing this your brain might spot analogies to the computer problem you were thinking about that day at work. Suddenly you scream "Ah, Hah!" and drop the garbage after all, but there is the solution. Related might be the concept that maybe one of the reasons we need sleep is that that is when we do our garbage collection, reconcile the books, and generally clean up in the corners. After a good cleaning related things might now lie next to each other, long lost things might reappear, and new solutions might become obvious. Hence the saying: "I'll sleep on it." Like computer garbage collection, maybe the brain is not good for much else at the same time so we go curl up and `sleep' in some safe place while. Might be getting in over my head with this, so I'll quit now. Kent Borg kent@lloyd.uucp or ...!husc6!lloyd!kent
warner@s3dawn.ARPA (Ken Warner) (06/21/89)
>might reappear, and new solutions might become obvious. Hence the >saying: "I'll sleep on it." Like computer garbage collection, maybe >the brain is not good for much else at the same time so we go curl up >and `sleep' in some safe place while. Kent Borg Maybe this is reflective of how much of who-knows-what neuro-transmitter is available. Does sleep allow for the replentishment of neuro-transmitters? Maybe we have all the information we need to come to a solution but don't have the gas to put it together and present it to ourselves. After sleep we have the juice--all the pieces are there and kerplunk, it fits together. Sorry about the slang and mixed-metaphors...its just the way it came out. Ken Warner
george@sequent.UUCP (George Emery) (06/21/89)
In article <1752@scubed.UUCP> warner@s3dawn.UUCP (Ken Warner) writes: >Maybe this is reflective of how much of who-knows-what neuro-transmitter is >available. Does sleep allow for the replentishment of neuro-transmitters? >Maybe we have all the information we need to come to a solution but don't have >the gas to put it together and present it to ourselves. After sleep we have >the juice--all the pieces are there and kerplunk, it fits together. This approach doesn't explain why we also get lots of ideas just before we go to sleep. I think the "garbage collecting" approach is closer to the truth. We're trying to relax and the garbage in our minds is sorted through, good stuff kept and the klunkers thrown out. With all this floating around, a strange brew can result and ideas which were previously disconnected become linked in new ways. How many times have you dreamed about unrelated things and upon waking had them linked throughout the day? George Emery ...!tektronix!sequent!crg3!george (503) 257-9731 (voice, home)
garye@hp-ptp.HP.COM (Gary_Ericson) (06/27/89)
There have been a lot of good responses here. Since I was the original poster, let me trim this down a bit by being more specific about what I want to ask. I am thinking about a handheld unit - something either notebook size (8"x11" and very thin like 1") or half-notebook size (8"x5" and maybe 2" thick) or large calculator size (like the Sharp Wizard). I envision using it while holding it in the air with one hand, or resting it on something while balancing it with one hand (on your knee, against the wall, etc.) - basically, you use it with one hand in environments where you probably can't find enough horizontal space to lay it down flat. With that in mind, there are two issues, and I am wondering if there are any specific studies that address these: -------- A) General efficiency of handwriting versus typing. Gary L. Newell: > Of course, if you intend a user population which is unfamiliar with or > simply not very good using keyboards - then I guess that it might be > usefull - say for inventory updates on the warehouse floor or the > factory floor (something hand held...). Pretty much what I had in mind. In this kind of environment, I would think handwriting would be less frustrating then typing. Donald A. Norman: > 2. If the device is hand held, so that one hand is occupied supporting > the device and only one hand is available for input, for a large class > of people, handwriting is faster than typing. I agree. I do believe that the "class" is "large", meaning we're missing a big chunk of people with typing-only interfaces. -------- B) Handwriting vs. typing for non-text-intensive applications. Gary L. Newell: > Single gestures can indicate target, scope, and action for many commands > in applications like editting - much better than most keyboard designs. and Lambert Meerteens: > Keyboard entry condemns us to stay > bound to a small set of symbols, which may be OK for some applications, but > which blocks development in many areas: engineering, mathematics, chemistry. and Thom Gillespie: > The one thing which 'writing' allows which 'typing' doesn't is the ability to > express ideas without words - with pictures, jottings, diagrams. > Text I'd rather 'type', ideas I'd rather 'express'. and Gary L. Newell again: > ...a stylus/tablet interface > is simply a very poor idea for applications with a large percentage of text > entry. Editting, spreadsheets, some formula writing, are better applications > for these systems. This is a big point for me. My original question only dealt with efficiency, but the broader idea in the back of my mind is that more and more computer interfacing is getting less and less text-intensive. Line-mode commands are being replaced with point-and-shoot, and more tools used for designing or "thinking" (idea organizers, outliners) are more graphics-oriented than pure text. A personal example: When I take notes, I don't use a lot of pictures (some), but I do use the physical relationship between pieces of text to carry information. I may group similar ideas together in one corner or use columns or rows, and I always use indentation to show outlines and structure. This is a real pain in the neck with just a keyboard, but is very easy with a pen and paper. I have tried typing notes into the computer while I'm talking on the phone (and I'm a pretty fast touch-typist), but I've given up in frustration because I can put down more information more quickly using spatial relationships with pen and paper. True, there are some applications that make more sense with a keyboard, such as word processing. But once the text is entered, editing that text involves jumping around the page changing things, and this implies (to me) that a gestural interface is more efficient or at least more intuitive (of course mass changes, "change all Gery to Gary" are probably still best handled as line-oriented commands). -------- And the practical, bottom line: Donald A. Norman: > Typing versus handwriting: why the "versus," why not "along with" The best situation, I agree, is to include both. Microwriter's handheld Agenda includes a regular set of alpha keys along with their 5-key chord layout so that the user can pick which one he/she wants to use. > What do I conclude? That each input device has its place. > Moreover, I suspect that any individual would switch back and forth, > depending upon circumstances and the nature of the input material. I definitely agree. > BUT, if you are going to include a keyboard: > > 1. Make it full size (it can fold up to a small size, but it should > unfold to full size) I haven't been able to figure out how to do this. I picture a flat, membrane keyboard (with no tactile feedback) that rolls up or folds up and has trouble lying flat on the table when you want to type. Yuk! But, I'm not a mechanical engineer... One of my conclusions is this: I think we computer people have been so keyboard-bound that we've been blind to how useful a stylus interface could be and in how many applications it would really shine. I think that after we've started using an interface like that we'll start thinking up new ways to approach problems when we're no longer bound to text-only input. Gary Ericson - Hewlett-Packard, Workstation Technology Division phone: (408)746-5098 mailstop: 101N email: gary@hpdsla9.hp.com
kmont@hpindda.HP.COM (Kevin Montgomery) (06/28/89)
Warner@s3dawn.UUCP (Ken Warner) writes: >Maybe this is reflective of how much of who-knows-what neuro-transmitter is >available. Does sleep allow for the replentishment of neuro-transmitters? >Maybe we have all the information we need to come to a solution but don't have >the gas to put it together and present it to ourselves. After sleep we have >the juice--all the pieces are there and kerplunk, it fits together. I think the "aha" phenomenon has more to do with interference (ie. noise). Putting on my connectionist hat, when trying to recall something after laboriously concentrating on it could produce the condition where known units similar to the desired concept are saturated, as is the desired unit. However, determining the most activated unit is difficult due to the large numbers of highly saturated related units. After "clearing one's mind" of these things by sleeping, etc, the activation levels decrease to less-than- saturated levels and finding the more activated would be easier (depending on the nature of the activation depletion function) when presented later with only the relevant stimuli. (the "allow the system to reset and repeat only inputs relevant to problem" idea) This would also help to explain why recall is better after studying and sleeping, as opposed to studying, followed by an unrelated task. The unrelated task could potentially use some of the same primitives as the recall stimulus and would therefore continue to activate and interfere with the recall. Sleep however, would allow activations to return to "ground state" and recall from cues would be presumably better. just speculation, kevin
gln@arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell) (06/30/89)
I just thought that I'd add a couple more thoughts on this topic..... 1) IBM recently announced a product like the one we talked about (hand held for use on warehouse floors etc.) - they worked on the area in general with that goal in mind - I have no details about it and I am not even sure if they have begun production yet but I saw a little segment on the network news about 2 months ago. I have yet to see a new research paper from their group since that news blip so I assume that something is happening..... 2) Note that recognition of cursive script seems pretty bad at this point unless the vocabulary is kept quite small. The problem of segmenting the individual letters appears to be too difficult. Also, many words are created using a single continuous stroke which complicates things even more. The fact that many people wait to cross their t's or dot their i's also makes real-time recognition more difficult. 3) I have a paper around here somewhere called ' A comparitive evaluation of conventional vs handwriting interfaces' or something like that - I'll try to dig it out and post the reference - Cathy Wolf comes to mind as the author but I could be way off. 4) I am currently working in this area and would be very interested in hearing others results/failures/ideas/suggestions on any area of Gestural interface - hardware, human factors, recognition or pre/post processing algorithms - anything..... Gln
bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) (07/03/89)
In article <4601@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > Chuck Musciano: > > When I am faced with a problem...I sort of think about it... > > Sometime later, maybe days, maybe weeks, the full solution just pops > > into my head. > In article <206@intek01.UUCP> mark@intek01.UUCP (Mark McWiggins) writes: > > I've never been this systematic about it, but it works a lot the same way > > my best stuff in the shower, or just lying in bed Saturday morning. > In article <1751@scubed.UUCP> , warner@s3dawn.ARPA (Ken Warner) writes: > > Sometimes I will go to bed... and wake up with a complete solution. > > It's as if I dreamt the solution. > I wonder what Julian Jaynes would say about this? I don't presume to speak for Julian Jaynes (although I did find his book stimulating reading). But I find that Synthetic Reasoning (or Creative Problem Solving) requires use of both hemispheres. Since I am left-hemispere dominant, I have to shut down the left hemisphere (usually by going to sleep) in order to give the right side a chance to generate a novel idea and communicate it to my left hemisphere. --Barry Kort