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)