kirlik@chmsr (Alex Kirlik) (04/14/91)
In article <OG73CU9@taronga.hackercorp.com> peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >alex@telecdn.uucp (Alex Laney) writes: >> This is of course, way out in left field... > >No, it's pretty reasonable actually. > >> I would like to put forth the proposal to rename the following newsgroups... > >> comp.cog-eng --> comp.software-eng.cognitive OR comp.software-eng.user-interface > >How about using the existing comp.sw hierarchy? > > comp.sw.engineering > comp.sw.cog-eng Please, to say that cog-eng is a software issue is similar to saying that electrical engineering is a radio or TV issue. It is a historical accident (owing to the fact that computer folks were the dominant net users) that a lot of stuff got placed under the comp hierarchy rather than some other hierarchy (eng. perhaps). Besides interface software design, cog-eng relates to hardware design, documentation, training, the design of a telephone, a stapler, the layout of you-are-here maps in shopping malls, curriculum design for 4th grade, where the windshield wiper in a car should be placed, and virtually any other design problem where knowledge of human cognition is relevant. Yes, most, but not all, of the postings in comp.cog-eng concern interface software, but this is merely an artifact of the current user population. Ten years down the line with the spread of computer literacy perhaps the distribution of net users will be more representitive of the distribution of researchers and practioners in all domains of inquiry. Maybe by then we will see top nodes like: eng.electrical eng.mechanical eng.software eng.cognitive etc. Just my two cents, Alex UUCP: kirlik@chmsr.UUCP {backbones}!gatech!chmsr!kirlik INTERNET: kirlik@chmsr.gatech.edu