Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site unicus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!yetti!unicus!craig
From: craig@unicus.UUCP (Craig D. Hubley)
Newsgroups: comp.cog-eng,news.groups
Subject: Re: comp.cog-eng
Message-ID: <848@unicus.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 25-Jul-87 22:38:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: unicus.848
Posted: Sat Jul 25 22:38:47 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 26-Jul-87 18:35:56 EDT
References: <386@sdics.ucsd.EDU> <1486@hou2d.UUCP>
Reply-To: craig@unicus.UUCP (Craig D. Hubley)
Organization: Unicus Software Inc., Toronto, Ont.
Lines: 43
Xref: mnetor comp.cog-eng:224 news.groups:1289

Sort of long... bear with me.

The problem, I think, with the name comp.cog-eng is that it could just
as easily be understood as "the engineering OF cognition", although it
was intended to mean "engineering FOR cognition".  Thus Mr.Harnad's 
cross-posted "sludge".  That former definition could be yet another
synonym for AI.

I don't think it is a good idea to splinter the human factors discussion
across several groups.  It is, after all, a holistic subject and that
should be encouraged.  This, to me, means keeping varied aspects of the
discussion under a net-name.  The creation of a group such as "sci.psychology"
might prove useful, but in the absence of traffic it shouldn't be assumed.
It would also serve to generate traffic on Freud and Jung - fine, but I've
seen no one on cog-eng discuss matters that ought to be moved to such a group.
If someone wants to discuss psychology relevant to human factors issues, of
which there is a great deal, by all means do it in the human factors group.
If there is a token psychologist posting to "comp.user-interface" and a token
designer posting to "sci.psychology", that only makes the situation worse.
Splintering and overspecialization was one of the things that has made human
factors engineering such a poor cousin to other forms of engineering, when
it should have been at the top of the heap.

My solution ?  (Of course, those who post criticisms must post alternatives!
 :-)).  We have the "comp." prefix, why not simply add "for_humans", or some
such, so that the purpose is absolutely clear.  It may not read like other
net names, but then this shouldn't be like other net groups.  It isn't just
USING the media of the computer, it's ABOUT the media and its effects.  Sort
of a meta-group.

I don't think it's possible to misread:  comp.for_humans
					comp.for.humans ?
Wouldn't this solve the problem?
And isn't this what it's about.

I've had my say.  My next post (to whatever is decided) will be about a real
human factors issue.  Maybe those participating in this current debate ought
to do the same.  Nothing gets a group back on track like content.

	Craig Hubley, Unicus Corporation, Toronto, Ont.
	craig@Unicus.COM				(Internet)
	{seismo!mnetor, utzoo!utcsri}!unicus!craig	(dumb uucp)
	mnetor!unicus!craig@seismo.css.gov		(dumb arpa)