Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!gatech!bloom-beacon!husc6!necntc!ames!ptsfa!ihnp4!homxb!hou2d!avr From: avr@hou2d.UUCP (Adam V. Reed) Newsgroups: comp.cog-eng,news.groups Subject: Re: comp.cog-eng Message-ID: <1486@hou2d.UUCP> Date: Fri, 24-Jul-87 10:30:05 EDT Article-I.D.: hou2d.1486 Posted: Fri Jul 24 10:30:05 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jul-87 14:34:39 EDT References: <386@sdics.ucsd.EDU> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel Lines: 23 Summary: One group is not enough Xref: mnetor comp.cog-eng:222 news.groups:1277 In article <386@sdics.ucsd.EDU>, norman@sdics.UUCP writes: > 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. The standards may be de-facto ones: most people in the field refer to themselves as "user interface developers"; almost none call themselves "cognitive engineers". Another valid technique for correcting a defective design is to diagnose the bugs, and fix them. Cognitive engineering is strongly related to both ergonomics in general, and to psychology. People working in those fields post in comp.cog-eng because it is the "closest thing" to what they need but don't have, namely separate groups for those disciplines. I think that comp.cog-eng needs to be split into three related but separate groups: comp.user-interface sci.ergonomics sci.psychology I have added news.groups to the heading. Adam Reed (hou2d!avr)