>> I think that creating computer systems that support naive or unfounded >> "intuitions" (whether about how computers work or about the world >> outside the computer system) actually does a disservice. > > I agree, but with a twist: computer systems should help us in founding > useful intuitions, with a reasonable scope. A programming language should be > designed to quickly grow intuitive. Some relationship to human experience > will probably help with this goal. And the system must remain predictable > even as we extend or manipulate it.
Count me in the camp that thinks intuition should absolutely be incorporated into computational systems design. That said, I agree fully with the quote cited above. It's actually really hard to articulate one's intuitions in a way that can be realized in software. We interact with these systems so much, but I would venture to guess that most of us would have a difficult time designing a really intuitive system that new users could easily grasp. The fact is, we simply aren't trained for it. Seeing how someone whose expertise is psychology can help the design process has really opened my eyes to the effort and knowledge it actually takes to design a "non-naive" system. The difference between designing from an engineer's intuition and designing an intuitive system guided by techniques from the field of psychology are night and day. wes _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
