::scr Internet Explorer - Danger in numbers?

[David Cantrell]

On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 10:33:43AM +0000, Simon Wistow wrote:
> Dave, meet the new IA types on the list. New IA types, thanks for
> subscribing. Meet Dave :)

Hello.  Dave likes beer, curry, loud music, frightening small children and
suits, and unix, not necessarily in that order.

> On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 07:27:56PM +0000, David Cantrell said:
> > No, no, a thousand times no.  A computer is a tool.  I see no problem with
> > people having to learn and understand their tools before use.  You wouldn't
> > expect anyone to be able to pick up a multimeter and debug the wiring in
> > your flat, or a stethoscope to debug your heart, so why on earth should the
> > tool that sits on your desk be different?
> 
> But a computer is supposed to be an abstraction tool. They're supposed
> to be getting easier.

That is what the marketroids would have you believe, yes.  They're not
getting easier though, they're just getting more technologically advanced
and so getting used in more situations.  I'm not really sure what an
"abstraction tool" is :-)

> Steve Wozniak got an Altair. Then he built his own computers. Then he
> came up with the Apple ][. Now, a couple of decades later, we have an
> angelpoise lamp with DVD drive and a G4 processor and a point and drool
> GUI. 
> 
> This is progress.

No, this is technological advancement.  The GUI probably counts as progress
(although it's been stuck in a rut for fifteen years) but none of the rest
does.  None of the others make it able to do stuff better, it just lets it
do more stuff.

> > Useable != intuitive.  Useable implies easy to learn and consistent.
> 
> That's the problem - there's supposed to be a learning curve (or no
> curve whatsoever if I read Raskin right.

If Raskin said that, he's an idiot.  Again, I will refer him to his
nearest multimeter and ask him to perform a simple task with it - debug
the wiring in his flat - and laugh when he complains about the learning
curve which shouldn't be there.

>                                           Which I usually don't since I
> disagree with a fair bit of stuff he says) but, borrowing from Chemistry
> terms, the activation energy to get onto that curve is small.
> 
> With Crypto/Security that activation energy is much higher. There's an
> initial bump with very little positive feedback - "God, why do I have to
> keep changing my password every 2 weeks? Why can't I write it on a
> postit note? Why can't it be based on a dictionary word? *grumble*
> *grumble*" -  which will put people off.

Yes, there is a problem with the users being insufficiently educated.

It is incumbent on those charged with ensuring security to educate the users.
If only because it ill behooves them to have clueless shits wasting their
time with pointless whiny questions every hour of the day :-)  It is also
a requirement that those security staff have sufficient backing from
manglement to take appropriate action when staff who have been educated
persist in soing stupid things.

> Games (moi? talking about games? never!) are possibly the best example
> of this ... they are ultimate 'must be easy' interface - if people don't
> immediately get into your game then it's toast in the market.

I don't think so.  Games-meisters are used to the conventions, which have
evolved over time, and so can use the interfaces that the rest of us find
incomprehensible and unusable.  I find @fighting_games mostly unplayable,
for example.  For me, there is no connection at all between [insert random
button sequence] and punching someone's teeth through the back of his
low-life head.  I find @driving_games mostly unplayable too, presumably
because I learnt to drive for real before starting to play them and NONE
of them behave like real driving - they are just sufficiently close to
make me try to treat them like they are.

I'm glad I could never get enthralled by flight sims, cos god help me if
I try to behave in a real plane like what those would teach me to behave.
Yes, I joined the Flying Club at work :-)

-- 
Grand Inquisitor Reverend David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

  There is no sigmonster