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