The problem, for the "average end user", is just what Microsoft said long ago: Choice is bad. Today's end users need the equivalent of an automobile. Once you've learned how to drive a "regular" car (versus an 18-wheeler or Formula One or NASCAR ...), then you can fairly easily drive most other consumer cars. Computers are still in the pre-Henry Ford days. Every car manufacturer did it their own way, sometimes multiple ways. Personally, I think that the smart phone or tablet interface will "win out" for the average consumer. Only geeks (and maybe hard core gamers) will use mice and keyboards. I try to imagine the future "knowledge worker" trying to use these interfaces for things like claim forms. I rather like the thought of a Quake-like interface for claims processing <grin/>. "Frag that claim!" But it may be that the real future (assuming the ME doesn't explode and destroy the entire civilization) is phablet sized devices mainly using voice recognition and speech. I do that for SMS messages on my Android smart phone.
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Lou Losee <llo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is it truly required for *everyone* to be computer literate? In the early > days computers were not so widespread the few that used them were those > that understood them and how they worked. This was necessary as the > systems themselves were crude with regard to interfaces and services > provided. Now that the computer has become more of an appliance why should > users need to understand it anymore than they need to understand how a > phone or a car transmission (manual or automatic) works in order to use it. > > If you want to spread technology to the masses, you need to remove the > complexity and the need for intimate understanding. Everyone does not have > the time, knowledge or possibly the intellect for understanding complex > systems that are in common use. > > Lou > > -- > Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity > - Unknown > > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Gerhard Adam <gada...@charter.net> wrote: > > > Fair enough, but let's forget about users in this regard. In my > > experience, > > the business environment has become unnecessarily restrictive regarding > > risk, so that even supposed "sandbox" systems may have significant limits > > on > > what an individual can do. When this is coupled with there being zero > > benefit to taking on such a risk, it becomes easier to see why > individuals > > shy away from it. > > > > What's the point in trying to learn something when the only time you get > > attention is when you make a mistake. > > > > So while it was certainly true that there were PLMs and training more > > readily available in the past, it is equally true that many techies > learned > > because of mistakes and errors, whereas today there is little praise and > > much blame for those taking on those tasks. > > > > Adam > > > > >Good question. For professional training (which costs $$$$$$), it is > > likely > > >the business environment. But I've also had users refuse to take free, > > >internal, courses because they: (1) don't have the time; (2) already > know > > >all that stuff; and (3) don't want to bother because software should be > > >"intuitive" (i.e. should do what I want/need, not what I tell it to). > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- This is clearly another case of too many mad scientists, and not enough hunchbacks. Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
