astieber@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Anthony J Stieber) (12/31/88)
I thought that this might apply to the current discussion. >From: andrea@hp-sdd.HP.COM (Andrea K. Frankel) Newsgroups: sci.psychology,comp.cog-eng Subject: Re: Wanted: references to computer mouse usage studies Date: 13 Dec 88 21:12:11 GMT Reply-To: andrea@hp-sdd.UUCP (Andrea K. Frankel) Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division Lines: 52 In article <148@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu> STAT02@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu writes: >It has been my experience that females >more frequently take a longer time to become comfortable using a mouse. >(whether this has a cultural or biological basis, I don't know, and >frankly my dear, I don't give a damn :-). I was also struck, in a set of >letters published in one of those glossy trade journals on the sins / >virtues of mouse usage, that a larger percentage of the cons were from >females. [x lines deleted] There was a blurb in the newspaper recently, and also in Science News I believe, reporting that the spatial-vs-verbal skill tradeoff varied in women according to their hormonal levels in a regular monthly cycle. It would be interesting to try "mouse acceptance tests" on non-mouse-using women and see if there was any correlation with where they were in their menstrual cycle! Andrea Frankel, Hewlett-Packard (San Diego Division) (619) 592-4664 "...I brought you a paddle for your favorite canoe." ______________________________________________________________________________ UUCP : {hplabs|nosc|hpfcla|ucsd}!hp-sdd!andrea Internet : andrea%hp-sdd@hp-sde.sde.hp.com (or @hplabs.hp.com, @nosc.mil, @ucsd.edu) USnail : 16399 W. Bernardo Drive, San Diego CA 92127-1899 USA Here is my .signature -- internet:astieber@csd4.milw.wisc.edu |\|BeingNet: Tony Stieber bitnet :astieber%csd4.milw.wisc.edu@INTERBIT |/|BustedUpNet: 414-529-2663 uucp :att!uwmcsd1!uwmcsd4!astieber |\|Terranet: 8858 Garden Lane csnet :astieber%csd4.milw.wisc.edu@uwm.CSNET|/| Greendale WI 53129
lsc@Sun.COM (Lisa S Chabot) (01/12/89)
And just why is it that women are always supposed to be worse at things than men? As a veteran guinea pig in mouse testing at my former employer, I feel qualified to share the following anecdotal evidence: In one test measuring where users thought the cursor sprite ought to me in relation to the pointed to object, I was deemed "too accurate" and my data points were discarded. On the average of the group tested, women's hands were smaller than men's hands, and there was a noted correspondence between men preferring larger mice than women preferred. The extreme example in one of the tests was a mouse the size and shape of half a softball with the buttons all the way down at the level of the table: it was great for those blessed by large hands, but I've got barely six inches from heel to tip of the middle finger, and that mouse was almost as pleasant as running in high heels. Unfortunately, it still seems infeasible to offer mice in a variety of sizes: xs, s, m, l, xl. I like lightweight, whippy mice; the more skittish the better. I'd always thought this corresponded to those *other* studies that show that women are better at small muscle movements, and therefore are good at things like fly fishing, fighter piloting, electronic keyboards. [My car has whippy steering too; I love it.] I detest those rubber-footed sluggish rodents--they give me an ache in the elbow. We've gotten beyond the point of deciding that there is one true answer as to how people interact with their window systems (e.g., tiled vs. overlapping), why don't we realize that people have preferences regarding the mechanical attachments? They may or may not be gender-related, indirectly or directly; but why not make everyone the most productive they can be, rather than deciding the old "women aren't any good"? lchabot@sun.com As usual, this is my own wild opinion, and in no way represents any of my employers, present or past. All power corrupts, but we need electricity.