Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!gatech!hao!ames!sdcsvax!sdics!norman
From: norman@sdics.ucsd.EDU (Donald A. Norman)
Newsgroups: comp.cog-eng
Subject: Re: comp.cog-eng
Message-ID: <386@sdics.ucsd.EDU>
Date: Thu, 23-Jul-87 10:43:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdics.386
Posted: Thu Jul 23 10:43:03 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jul-87 07:17:33 EDT
Reply-To: norman@sdics.UUCP (Donald A. Norman)
Organization: UC San Diego Institute for Cognitive Science
Lines: 57
Summary: On choosing a name for this group

References:


Sounds like a typical problem in human factors/ergonomics/
human-computer interaction: selecting a name.

Now, it is well known that one should not select design parameters
simply by thinking about it.  One must either use previously accepted
standards or do some experiments.  Moreover, Landauer, et al have
shown ad nauseum that there will NOT be any single name that will
satisfy everyone nor meet all criteria.

It is also well established that abbreviations cause difficulty.
You, dear reader, may know what mmi or hci or chi or cogeng stands
for, but you are not the problem.  The problem is all the thousands of
readers on the net who do NOT know those terms, but who can read into
the abbreviated terms definitions consitent with their own needs.

I therefore recommend a FULL name, at least as full as possible given
the constraints of netnews.

Two observations:   

1. please do not revert to sexist terms.  Some of us have gone to
great lengths to eliminate such names as "man-machine interface" (MMI)
from our vocabularies.  Please do not restart its use.

2. CogEng or Cognitive Engineering.  In this case, I suspect the misue
of the term was not by misunderstanding.  If I recall correctly,
person X (no names) starting posting his articles here, even though I
bet he fully understood the meaning of the term.  Rather, he probably
believed that the kind of psychologist/ cognitive scientist who might
read CogEng would also be the kind of person who would be interested
in that particular discussion.  If I am correct about this, there is
litle that can be done except to have someone try to stop it as soon
as it starts.  Perhaps I should have done so.  The point being that
those of us who were interested in that topic also got it in the AI
list.

3.  It would be a shame to lose the nice term CogEngineering, but I
would be happy with any term that fit the requirements. Especially
given my earlier comment that it is well known that no single name
will meet all the requirements.

Here are three suggestions:
	Ergonomics
	HumanFactors
	HumanComputerInteraction

Take your pick.   Personally I would prefer the current term, but
spelled out more fully.
	CognitiveEngineering


Donald A. Norman
Institute for Cognitive Science C-015
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, California 92093
norman@nprdc.arpa    	{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!ics!norman
norman@sdics.ucsd.edu	norman%sdics.ucsd.edu@RELAY.CS.NET