On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 15:23 +0100, Derek M Jones wrote: > If one defines numeracy as the ability to manipulate numbers > using calculators, then yes this research is applicable to > numeracy. Being old fashioned I define numeracy as the > ability to manipulate numbers without external aids.
I think that's unduly restrictive. I confidently assert that I'm numerate, but I can't do much long division or definite integration in my head. To me, numeracy means that, when doing arithmetic, I have a sense for the magnitude and sign of the answer; when looking at a graph, I can relate it to numbers, and have a sense of how they're affected by rates of change and trends. > My point is that this particular feature is not poor design. It > makes sense in a world where pressing a different operator > key to correct an earlier mistake is a more common operation > than the second operand of a multiply being negative. The design flaw isn't in what the buttons do, but in the whole approach to mapping arithmetic onto them. This is why, for its time, RPN was a better system for operating calculators than all the pseudo-algebraic systems. I have a remarkable proof of this, which this e-mail is too small to contain, but Google is bigger: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.misc/msg/7353fbc64c3f7082 But RPN critically depends on the user actually being numerate, which is why engineers loved it while the Man on the Clapham Omnibus hated it. When numerate people stopped buying calculators in any significant numbers, calculator design progress basically stopped dead, because then they had to be sold to people who couldn't add, or who were just learning how to. These are the kinds of people that the Thimbleby research seems to be trying to help, but there is no economic process that can put that help into practice, because calculators are now a commodified, no-margin business. Such commodification is essentially permanent; I know of no field of technology where a no-margin commodity becomes a high-margin diversity again. It's like researching more usable designs for paper clips or tea pots. For the research to be worth it, it has to be taken up by the major manufacturers, except they're not interested, because their customers aren't informed enough to see the benefits, and don't care enough to learn. > Isn't being good enough the aim of all product development? No; making money is the aim of all product development, but how it works varies dependent on what you're making. If you're selling a commodity item (that is, one that meets widely-agreed upon standards of functionality and quality, and that otherwise is sold solely on price and availability), then you strive to manufacture and distribute for the lowest possible cost that will keep you in the market. New features only get added where a marketing campaign might benefit from them (for example, circular tea bags), but these rarely persist or update the standard for all. Whereas, if you're in a non-commodified field, you strive to be *better* than the average, and ideally to have unique selling points that your competitors can't copy. These let you bump the price up, which potentially lets you get more profit per sale. Being "good enough" only really works for the first situation, not the second. Compare oil or memory chips (commodity items) with cars or jewellery (non-commodities). They're bought differently, and thus made differently. PCs and operating systems are becoming commodified right now, despite Apple's and Microsoft's best efforts (hence Apple's switch to Intel to cut costs, and Microsoft's full-court press on software patents to defend against Linux.) Calculators are almost entirely commodified now, and aren't coming back, so research into improving them seems wasted. *Replacing* them with something cheaper might *possibly* fly, but I didn't see that in the research. > Under 30? Frank, I think you are turning into a grumpy old > man. How long before you start saying under 40 ;-) [Looks at watch] About six years. That's local time, of course. -- Frank Wales [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PPIG Discuss List (discuss@ppig.org) Discuss admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss Announce admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/announce PPIG Discuss archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss%40ppig.org/
