sahayman@orchid.UUCP (05/15/87)
I don't know anything about this newsgroup but I want to get the directory created.
rapaport@sunybcs.UUCP (05/18/87)
In article <7585@orchid.UUCP> sahayman@orchid.UUCP writes: >I don't know anything about this newsgroup but I want to >get the directory created. I've been monitoring this newsgroup off and on for several months now, and this is the first item I've found. Is anyone else out there? I'm a Ph.D. in Philosophy, now doing research and teaching AI, concentrating on knowledge representation and natural-language understanding. William J. Rapaport Assistant Professor Dept. of Computer Science, SUNY Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260 (716) 636-3193, 3180 uucp: ..!{allegra,decvax,watmath,rocksanne}!sunybcs!rapaport csnet: rapaport@buffalo.csnet bitnet: rapaport@sunybcs.bitnet
shaffer@operations.dccs.upenn.edu (Earl Shaffer) (05/18/87)
Yes, is anyone there? ============================================================================== Earl Shaffer - University of Pennsylvania - Data Communications Department "Time was invented so that everything wouldn't happen at once." Steven Wright ==============================================================================
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (05/18/87)
In article <3439@sunybcs.UUCP>, rapaport@sunybcs.UUCP (William J. Rapaport) writes: > >I don't know anything about this newsgroup but I want to > >get the directory created. > > I've been monitoring this newsgroup off and on for several months now, > and this is the first item I've found. Is anyone else out there? > I'm a Ph.D. in Philosophy, now doing research and teaching AI, > concentrating on knowledge representation and natural-language > understanding. I am interested in human factors in computer systems design, since some of my organization's work involves the design of industrial and chemical process control systems, with such systems often being operated by persons with "limited computer literacy". I see very little discussion of this topic on the Net, and what does appear seems to be scattered among various news groups. Example problem: How does one design a process control human interface program for use by a 55 year old man who barely finished high school, still refers to a computer as an "electronic brain", never used even a typewriter in his whole life, is all thumbs, and thinks a menu is something to be found in a restaurant? Don't laugh; some of our systems are used by this kind of person! I'm not certain if this news group is the place for it, but it probably beats no discussion at all... <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York <> UUCP: {allegra|ames|boulder|decvax|rocksanne|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <> VOICE: 716/688-1231 {hplabs|ihnp4|mtune|seismo|utzoo}!/ <> FAX: 716/741-9635 {G1,G2,G3 modes} "Have you hugged your cat today?"
stro@rochester.ARPA (Steve Robiner) (05/19/87)
Yes, I'm here. Let's talk philosophy. -Steve
nyles@aeras.UUCP (Mister of the Universe) (05/19/87)
>Yes, is anyone there?
No.
--
"After all, we evolved here." - Carl Sagan Nyles Nettleton
Disclaimer: I am NOT a bandersnatch! ...hplabs!
I don't even frume! ...ucbvax!sun!aeras!nylesdykimber@phoenix.UUCP (05/19/87)
In article <1767@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: > I am interested in human factors in computer systems design, since >some of my organization's work involves the design of industrial and chemical >process control systems, with such systems often being operated by persons >with "limited computer literacy". I see very little discussion of this topic >on the Net, and what does appear seems to be scattered among various news >groups. > Example problem: How does one design a process control human interface >program for use by a 55 year old man who barely finished high school, still >refers to a computer as an "electronic brain", never used even a typewriter >in his whole life, is all thumbs, and thinks a menu is something to be found >in a restaurant? Don't laugh; some of our systems are used by this kind of >person! I'll second that motion for starting a discussion here - it's just too enticing a newsgroup name to go unused. I'm just a lowly undergraduate, but I still have a few opinions on subjects such as this. My first reaction to your example problem is to think in terms of the iconic interfaces that are so popular. It would seem that it's much easier for people to adapt to a system that makes some steps towards adapting to them, i.e. emulating what they already know. So, in the case of this process control problem [and I'm speaking from ignorance - I'd be interested in a sample domain], pretty pictures and a simplified input device would be the way to go. But I think there are some people you're never going to get to work well with a computer until the computer itself is relegated to the status of a "black box," i.e. something hidden under a table which "somehow does xxxxxx." I'm reminded of the case of a woman who taught history at my high school [this was five years ago], who walked into a room in which there were two Apple II+'s. Upon realizing that there were computers in the room [a small office], she shrunk back into the door and refused to cross the room when we asked her if she wanted a demo. Well, enough of this posting... -Dan
rjf@eagle.UUCP (05/19/87)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: In article <1199@super.upenn.edu.upenn.edu> shaffer@operations.dccs.upenn.edu.UUCP (Earl Shaffer) writes: >Yes, is anyone there? > Yes - me. And I would like to know if anyone agrees with me that the Strong Anthropic Principle (if that's the correct nomenclature) really reduces to We observe, therefore we are, therefore we observe.. [repeating] (Maybe followupers (if any!) should change the subject line.) Robin Faichney rjf@uk.ac.ukc ...!mcvax!ukc!rjf
rjf@eagle.UUCP (05/19/87)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: In article <1199@super.upenn.edu.upenn.edu> shaffer@operations.dccs.upenn.edu.UUCP (Earl Shaffer) writes: >Yes, is anyone there? > Yes - me. And I would like to know if anyone agrees with me that the Strong Anthropic Principle (if that's the correct nomenclature) really reduces to We observe, therefore we are, therefore we observe.. [repeating] (Maybe followupers (if any!) should change the subject line.) (Sorry if the previous version of this escaped before I killed it.) Robin Faichney rjf@uk.ac.ukc ...!mcvax!ukc!rjf
greg@mind.UUCP (Greg Nowak) (05/19/87)
In article <312@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU> dykimber@phoenix.UUCP (Dan Kimberg) writes: >In article <1767@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: >> Example problem: How does one design a process control human interface >>program for use by a 55 year old man who barely finished high school, still >>refers to a computer as an "electronic brain", never used even a typewriter >>in his whole life, is all thumbs, and thinks a menu is something to be found >>in a restaurant? Don't laugh; some of our systems are used by this kind of >>person! > >My first reaction to your example >problem is to think in terms of the iconic interfaces that are so popular. >It would seem that it's much easier for people to adapt to a system that makes >some steps towards adapting to them, i.e. emulating what they already know. So, And another technique is to limit the apparent generality of the machine ... mechanics have been using "computerized diagnostics" for a long time with no adverse reactions, because the diagnostic machines are limited in scope; they're *not* perceived as "electronic brains" with mysterious and unlimited powers. If by iconic interfaces you meant mouse-accessible menus, there's a further step you can take. Touch-sensitive screens, combined with graphics, seem to remove most of the computer-phobia, and solve the problem of access for those who can't type. Right off the bat, I could't guess whether a mouse or a TSS would be easier to use for the phobic or the physically impaired, but I'd vote for the TSS. Strange how it's the *keyboard*, and not rows of blinky lights, that now signal "computer" to most people ... a crt by itself is too much like a tv (remember "Brazil" ?) to frighten people. Personal note in support of activating this newsgroup: I'm a graduate student in the History of Science Program at Princeton. Coming to the field out of Mathematics, my perception of the sciences has been warped to stress the philosophical over the technical component of scientific change and application. Only now am I realizing that "science" came into existence during the Scientific/Industrial Revolutions as the product of interactions between these two traditions... Any meditations on the relative importance of technology and philosophy to the development are the sciences are welcome. And please post; let's get this newsgroup flying! Greg Nowak
ornitz@kodak.UUCP (barry ornitz) (05/19/87)
This posting is in response to Larry Lippman's posting about human factors
engineering for process control computer systems. I am sure Larry (a kindred
spirit if I ever found one) already is aware of the following information but
it might be useful to start discussions.
I work in the research labs of the Eastman Chemicals Division of Eastman
Kodak in a group that designs and builds custom instrumentation. We are also
involved in making our instruments easy to use by un-trained operators. One
technique we have found to work well is to imbed a computer in an instrument
in such a way as to not let the operator even know a computer is present -
no menus, no icons, no CRT screen, no keyboard; just a few buttons or switches
and perhaps some lights, and generally a digital readout like a digital volt-
meter. We often include an RS-232 connector in back where we can plug in a
terminal for maintenance or software changes but the terminal is rarely placed
in the operating environment. Even though the software may be doing very
complex calculations and handling self calibration, etc., the operator is not
generally aware of what is going on inside the instrument. We have found that
this technique works well for instruments that can have all of their software
ROM resident - in case of a glitch, the operator cycles power to the instrument
to reset.
As for large process control systems, most vendors offer exceptional graphics
for the process. Honeywell and Taylor come to mind but there are scores of
other companies around. Most of these systems have a "panelboard" simulation
mode where graphics are used to simulate the layout of conventional PID
controllers. Trend displays are also simulated to look like strip-charts.
We have found, however, that after using the system for several weeks, our
operators generally move to more modern information presentation methods.
Tabular displays or process graphics with process variables displayed next to
the displayed process unit are common.
We found that several years ago, with a large Honeywell system, the operator
keyboards were sequential alphabetically, i.e. A B C D E F G
H I J K L M N, etc. Now we find
that conventional QWERTY keyboards are usually supplied. With the advent of
cheap home computer systems, everyone seems to have been exposed to the QWERTY
layout.
When we first placed a computer control system in our research pilot plants,
the operators were resistant to its use saying that it could never control
the processes as well as they could. After using it for several months, they
grew to like the computer since it relieved them of the drugery of manually
recording data and turning valves, etc. Now they gripe if the computer is
down for even a short while, claiming that they can't run the complex processes
without the computer. My personal opinion is that they were afraid that the
computer would replace them. In actuality, it has freed the operators from
much of their daily drugery and allowed them to understand the processes
better that they were trying to control. They now use the computer as it
should be: as a tool.
I hope this can help stir up some interest in this group. My apologies to
Larry if it was boring.
-----------------
| ___ ________ |
| | / / | | Barry L. Ornitz UUCP:...!rochester!kodak!ornitz
| | / / | | Eastman Kodak Company
| |< < K O D A K| | Eastman Chemicals Division Research Laboratories
| | \ \ | | P. O. Box 1972
| |__\ \________| | Kingsport, TN 37662 615/229-4904
| |
-----------------dykimber@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) (05/19/87)
In article <763@mind.UUCP> greg@mind.UUCP (Greg Nowak) writes: >If by iconic interfaces you meant mouse-accessible menus, there's a further >step you can take. Touch-sensitive screens, combined with graphics, >seem to remove most of the computer-phobia, and solve the problem of >access for those who can't type. Right off the bat, I could't guess whether >a mouse or a TSS would be easier to use for the phobic or the physically >impaired, but I'd vote for the TSS. Strange how it's the *keyboard*, ... >let's get this newsgroup flying! > >Greg > Nowak I'll second that motion. I have reservations about TSSs though. I've seen them in a few places, not in industrial control, but in retail sales. They're nice, but I wouldn't call them wonderful. By iconic interface I meant any interface which uses pictorial symbols to represent real-world objects. That is, I figured it would be nice if what's on the screen would relate very directly to the real world, not through something like pull-down menus. But although I have nothing to back this up, it would be my guess that the CRT is as much guilty for setting the computer alarm off as the keyboard. -Dan
byrnes@ge-dab.UUCP (Arthur J. Byrnes) (05/20/87)
In article <312@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU> dykimber@phoenix.UUCP (Dan Kimberg) writes: >In article <1767@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: >> I am interested in human factors in computer systems design, since >>some of my organization's work involves the design of industrial and chemical >>process control systems, with such systems often being operated by persons >>with "limited computer literacy". I see very little discussion of this topic >>on the Net, and what does appear seems to be scattered among various news >>groups. >> Example problem: How does one design a process control human interface > >I'll second that motion for starting a discussion here - it's just too enticing >It would seem that it's much easier for people to adapt to a system that makes >some steps towards adapting to them, i.e. emulating what they already know. The biggest problem with technology training is that someone spends years in college and then thinks that he/she knows about the real world. That 55 year old operator probably knows more about his job than anybody else, but because he is "uneducated" the designers don't bother to consult him. Many programs fail in real life because the programmers have failed to look at real life and learn the free lessons. Other times programs fail because the programmer doesn't take the time to develop an operator interface that takes the human factor into account. The risks forum has had many examples of what happens when the programmer doesn't look beyond his own crt. (not a flame at programmers in general since I'm one too! Just thoughtless, ones.) Arthur J. Byrnes UUCP: ...!mcnc!ge-rtp!ge-dab!byrnes General Electric GEnet: advax::byrnes 1800 Volusia Ave, Rm 4412 Voice: +1 904 258 2507 Daytona Beach, FL 32015 Disclaimer; These views are those only of the author, Arthur.
cc_dgdc@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Clark) (05/20/87)
You didnt really believe that Horizon BBC2 TV program about the Four Anthropic (if thats how you spell it) Principles did you? It said that the Universe was specially designed in order that little man could come along and observe it to make it all real. That we are the point of the Universe. Send for Nikolaus Copernicus please. -- Douglas Clark Voice: +44 225 826826*5214 Computer Unit, Bath University, JANET: Clark@UK.AC.AUCC Claverton Down, Bath, Avon, UUCP : seismo!mcvax!ukc!bath63!cc_dgdc England BA2 7AY ARPA : cc_dgdc%ux63.bath.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
djh@ursa.UUCP (05/21/87)
In article <27871@rochester.ARPA> stro@rochester.UUCP (Steve Robiner(for Brown)) writes: > >Yes, I'm here. > >Let's talk philosophy. > >-Steve I'm an ex-philosophy student currently working in computer modelling on Wall Street (this is, I hope, a temporary situation). I as well am ready to talk philosophy, although I'm not sure where to begin (I suppose this is as good a place to begin as any). David Hyder