johnm@uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) (01/12/89)
In article <12.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP>, guthery@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) [in a comp.edu discussion on the quality of education] writes: > Just when you think it can't get any worse ... New York Bell reports > that they had to interview 22,000 people to fill 2,000 *ENTRY LEVEL* > positions. One of the tasks that tripped up the applicants the most was > reading numerical displays either off a tube or a LCD-type display. > Ya gotta ask yourself what the world looks like to the 20,000 that > flunked the test ... and who is going to be supporting them for the > rest of their lives. . . . . . Before flaming on about the supposedly poor education of the 20,000, I think we should ask precisely what type of displays caused the problem. It seems wrong to me to automatically blame the applicants for what may be a design error (either in the tests or in the meters themselves), such that the meaning of the display is non-intuitive. For example, some styles of utility meter involve reading several circular dials in a supposedly "proper" sequence, with some dials numbered counter-clockwise. The sort of people who apply for jobs as meter readers may not be in the habit of using computer screens much, and could be somewhat intimidated by them. Although re-designing the human interface might make it easier for New York Bell to find 2,000 suitable individuals, it doesn't provide jobs for the other 20,000 in any case. However, their morale might be slightly better, since they would not have "failed yet another test". I'm cross-posting this to comp.cog-eng, because of the human interface aspects of the issue. - John Murray, Amdahl Corp. (My own opinions, etc.)
maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) (01/22/89)
In article <edAWg54Cmn1010gUyXQ@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> johnm@uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) writes: >In article <12.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP>, guthery@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) > > [in a comp.edu discussion on the quality of education] writes: > >> Just when you think it can't get any worse ... New York Bell reports >> that they had to interview 22,000 people to fill 2,000 *ENTRY LEVEL* >> positions. One of the tasks that tripped up the applicants the most was >> reading numerical displays either off a tube or a LCD-type display. >> Ya gotta ask yourself what the world looks like to the 20,000 that >> flunked the test ... and who is going to be supporting them for the >> rest of their lives. . . . . . > >Before flaming on about the supposedly poor education of the 20,000, I >think we should ask precisely what type of displays caused the problem. This question of display-type came up twice yesterday in very different conversations. In the first, I mentioned a color display as the appropriate medium for a proposed writing environment (envisioned as word processor, outliner, free-form database, and grammar/mechanics-help program dynamically linked through Hypercard), and I was challenged to say why color was necessary. As almost all of my PC use has been with IBM-compatibles, not Macs, I "naturally" thought of color as appropriate, and I said in reply that a color display meant more information, one, and, two, for any user, a readier grasp of the environment's logical structure. Then I realized I didn't know whether either of these things was really significant--true, color offers more information, but is its presence significant in terms of the user's interaction with the program? Next, in a casual conversation about displays, a friend cited research he'd read that indicated all CRTs caused a 25% decrease in reading comprehension by comparison to the printed page. At the time I just nodded my head, but now I want to know: could this be true, or is this true in some fashion? More to the point, perhaps, does anyone know of the research that was alluded to? In sum: does color have a significant effect on a person's ability to understand and/or use a system? and is there any evidence that CRTs in general or types of CRTs in particular have an effect on reading comprehension? Post or e-mail as you see fit. If I get mail responses, I'll summarize. Tom Maddox UUCP: ...{ucf-cs|gatech!uflorida}!novavax!maddoxt
efrethei@afit-ab.arpa (Erik J. Fretheim) (01/24/89)
In article <928@novavax.UUCP> maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) writes: >In article <edAWg54Cmn1010gUyXQ@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> johnm@uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) writes: >>In article <12.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP>, guthery@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) >> >> [in a comp.edu discussion on the quality of education] writes: >> >>> Just when you think it can't get any worse ... New York Bell reports >>> that they had to interview 22,000 people to fill 2,000 *ENTRY LEVEL* >>Before flaming on about the supposedly poor education of the 20,000, I >>think we should ask precisely what type of displays caused the problem. > >and I was challenged to say why color was necessary. As almost all of >my PC use has been with IBM-compatibles, not Macs, I "naturally" >thought of color as appropriate, and I said in reply that a color >display meant more information, one, and, two, for any user, a readier >grasp of the environment's logical structure. Then I realized I >didn't know whether either of these things was really >significant--true, color offers more information, but is its presence >significant in terms of the user's interaction with the program? > > In sum: does color have a significant effect on a person's >ability to understand and/or use a system? and is there any evidence >that CRTs in general or types of CRTs in particular have an effect on >reading comprehension? > Nothing but personal opinion, but I have often found that the "helpful" color patterns on most PC applications have been more of a pain in the neck than a help. The colors distract attention and require that one shift ones frame of reference each time you look at a different portion of the screen. Colors are neat for games, but leave much to be desired for real work. Look at the newspaper. There the only sections with regularly appear in color are the comics and sports sections and we know what level of audience these are directed at :-) (except USA Today, but that falls in the same catagory as the afore mentioned sections). If color were so vital to the absorbtion of information, it would seem that the papers would have gone to color just as the TV's have (aduience level?) I stick to my BW (GB) monitor. cx
garye@hpdsla.HP.COM (Gary Ericson) (01/25/89)
> ... is there any evidence > that CRTs in general or types of CRTs in particular have an effect on > reading comprehension? > Tom Maddox ---------- I came across the following two titles: "Why reading was slower from CRT displays than from paper." Gou, there is no special equipment, and so I cannot have a disk that dissipates too much heat. I was wondering if anyone has done a survey of the different disks offered. I would be grateful if you could e-mail it to me. I'll post a summary, if anyone needs it. My disk has to be in a seperate enclosure, and I'm really not sure if I need another disk controller; I think I'm having a RQDX3 at the moment. Thanks in advance, -- Ravi. ------
troly@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Bret Jolly) (01/30/89)
I am teaching 4 lab sections of a beginning computer course which uses IBM PC compatibles. The main lab area has black and white monitors but there is an auxiliary lab which has color monitors. The color monitors are significantly easier to use, for the students and for me. For example, the cursor keeps getting lost in reversed-field displays on the black and white monitor. Different types of blocks selected by the word processor are displayed in different colors on the color monitor. These blocks are either undifferentiated or are marked by means which reduce legibility on the black and white monitors. When I worked as a technical flunkey in operations for the Deep Space Network, the control center had (essentially) black and white displays, while the spacecraft tracking stations had color displays. The color displays were significantly easier to read. Some people have claimed that color makes things worse, but I think these people were just exposed to very badly designed color displays. Color may make no difference for some applications, and I doubt it would help professional programmers much. But for tyros like me, my students, and my former comrades in technical flunkeydom, it makes a big difference. -Bret
ebm@ibmarc.uucp (Eli Messinger) (02/03/89)
Tom Maddow asks... > ... is there any evidence that CRTs in general or types of CRTs in > particular have an effect on reading comprehension? A good place to start reading about this subject is Mills and Weldon's survey paper "Reading Text from Computer Screens" in ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 19, No. 4, December 1987. It's a good summary of work in the area, and has a very extensive bibliography. -- "Bachelor #1 - would you ask a girl to substitute A7+5-9 for Eb9 on the first date?" --Andrew W. Rogers Eli Messinger, IBM Almaden Research Center CSNET: ebm@ibm.com / UUCP: ...!uunet!ibmarc!ebm / VNET: ebm@almaden