Hi Steve,
on Friday, October 29, 1999, 12:04:47 AM GMT+0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> Why? Even if this was meant to offend computers (which it wasn't), why
>> do you take it personally?
SL> Because it is an attack on those who don't find computers in that manner.
I don't feel it that way. Hmm.
SL>>> difficult to use,
>> I disagree - they are, for the general public. At least "too"
>> difficult.
SL> The "general public" finds the concept of breathing too hard. What's your
SL> point?
They have to breath, wehtehr they want to or not. They don't have to
use comptuers - "we" want them to. For commercial, political, or other
reasons. The bone won't walk to the dog. (German saying, meaning if
you want to sell something, you have to go to the market, not tell
the market to come and see you).
SL>>> unreliable
>> I believe this depends on the software - hardware is pretty reliable
>> these days, in my personal experience.
SL> That depends on the OS, mostly. Windows is unreliable. Mac is
SL> unreliable. Yet these are the systems that were "designed" for the very
SL> clueless nits that Paula is talking about. I do see a correlation there.
Well, the OS is software in my vocabulary, so you are actually saying
you agree with me? :-))))
SL>>> or frustrating.
>> <sigh> I wish you were always right on this one. ;-)
SL> Why do you find your computers frustrating.
Because they detect the smallest mistake I make. I missing semicolon in
a Pascal freaks up your programme and you look somewhere completely
different, for example. Unforgiving beast. ;-)
SL> What I find frustrating are the people who do not understand
SL> several of my points on why certain things work. Has nothing to do
SL> with the computers.
I get it: we are talking about different things here. But I also find
it frustrating when I try to explain something and people just don't
see my point. But I see this more as a psychological matter and agree
it has nothing to do with computers or this UDL.
SL> So far the computers that I have worked on (the many, MANY
SL> computers I have worked on) have all done what I expected of them.
SL> It is rare that I find one that does not perform as expected.
I agree with you here. But that does not prevent me from being
frustrated at times. Even in Windows, a wrong click and I lost my card
game.
>> This is the point were I entirely disagree with you. Expectations that
>> might look "unreasonable" to you today, may be the standard tomorrow.
SL> No, what looks unreasonable to me today is, well, unreasonable today.
See your point. I, OTOH, am more the one who has "visions" of what I
would like to do with a computer, that's how I get the ideas for my
programmes. It's an integral part of computing for me: the future is
in this machine. Let's see how much of it we can make it show us. Each
PC can do a lot more than it is used for. And in this context I cannot
think of many things I would call "unreasonable". An Internet Baud
rate of 1 GHz for the general public? Unreasonable for financial
reasons, but not technical. I currently am happy each time a file
transfer comes in with more than 1 KB/s - and this is "unreasonably
slow" I think, giving another twitch to this word.
SL> Tomorrow is another day. People have unreasonable expectations *today* for
SL> what computers can do *today*. People expect computers to sing, dance, play
SL> the fiddle, fart in the wind, do their taxes, and play a mean game of checkers
SL> all without them doing a thing. No, ain't gonna happen.
You are being sarcastic. I have seen computers opening windows
curtains at the clap of a hand, or turn up/down the volume of the
background music; a computerized bathroom which had a touch panle and
I had no clue how to flush the toilet. Everything conceivable is
doable (I don't know whether this bathroom would have farted in the
wind, though), but it is just too complicated. Apart from being
"unreasonably" expensive, I mean.
SL> Computers are one of the most complex, if not the most complex machine in
SL> use by the general population.
I agree with you here.
SL> Now, people are expecting to use this very complex machine with *NO*
SL> training at all!
That's not true, you are thinking balck&white. I need training to
operate a car, and every secretary gets trained including comptuer
courses. However, the amount of training that is necessary can be
"reasonably" reduced - so why insist on leaving it the way it is? I do
believe things should be simplified if possible. I love to be lazy
while enjoying the fruits of civilization.
SL> and they expect to be able to use the computer with no training at
SL> all.
SL> *THAT* is the unreasonable expectation.
That *would* be unreasonable, but people don't expect that. People
don't expect that any new member of mankind can go to toilet without
training.
>> at Bank A today?") as an example. Keyboards are one of these things
>> nobody wants to use in the future.
SL> Love that prediction. You know, there are a slew of people who don't want
SL> to use the mouse for many operations you would claim they would not want to
SL> use the keyboard for. I'm sorry, I'd rather type out many commands than say
SL> them because I can type them faster.
SL> rm -rf /foo/* | less
SL> "Arr Emm space dash arr eff space slash foo slash star space pipe less"
<LOL>
SL> "Computer, recursively and forcably delete all files in the root level
SL> directory foo, display the resulting information in the pager less"
<ROFLOLMAO>
SL> Oh, yeah, that is much easier. Yeah. *eyeroll*
Love that. However, you know quite well that we were talking about
different things. You are talking amount computing commands to do
things within the computer and it's world. I am talking about using a
computer as a tool to simplify things in the "real" world. Logging in,
type type, until I finally get my account balance, twenty minutes have
passed. Unnecessary. Waste of time.
>> The average user does not need to be beyond complete idiots. Without
>> going too much into detail, I take programming a VCR as an example.
SL> Good example. Programming a VCR has gotten easier and easier yet people
SL> still find it difficult. It does not matter how easy they make it, people
SL> need training and they don't want to put in the time and effort to learn.
That's the current status. I'll love to see a VCR so user-friendly
that it is self-explanatory. I don't see a reason how the status quo
could be defendable.
>> is that many people whose focus on life is somewhere else than
>> computers, may not be too stupid to use them but simply not
>> inrterested in the complicated way they work now.
SL> My focus is computers. Yet I still have taken training to do the many
SL> other things that I do in my daily life. Others can do the same for
SL> computers.
They do. they want to keep it within reason. They don't want to have
to train working with computers more than they train for other
neceesary but unliked things. They do that now, because it is the way
it is: you can't use your computer unless you do it the way they are
made now. "They" think this should be changed and made easier.
I agree with them, but you don't. No, I don't see your point, and I
don't want to accuse you of enjoying a guru status as long as
computers are this comlicated and you are one of the select few to
understand them. Don't worry, they will get even more complex, but the
interface between computer and human will be closer to the human,
meaning the computer will have to do more steps of communication,
rather than the human. I am not sure whether makes sense without a
graphic.
--
Best regards,
Thomas.
Message reply created with The Bat! 1.36
under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 1998
on a Pentium II/350 MHz.
