Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!elroy!grian!liz
From: liz@grian.UUCP (Liz Allen-Mitchell)
Newsgroups: comp.cog-eng
Subject: Re: Technological overcomplexity in 1523
Summary: adjusting to user level
Keywords: cognitive engineering, design, comnplexity, history of technology
Message-ID: <1664@grian.UUCP>
Date: 10 Aug 88 04:09:27 GMT
References: <585@sdics.ucsd.EDU> <17596@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> <587@sdics.ucsd.EDU> <1383@hp-sdd.HP.COM> <693@tetra.NOSC.MIL> <1391@hp-sdd.HP.COM> <694@tetra.NOSC.MIL>
Reply-To: liz@grian.UUCP (Liz Allen-Mitchell)
Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA
Lines: 21

Re Edward M. Embick's proposal about adjusting an interface to adjust
to the user's skills:

It occurs to me that people do this all the time.  It is particularly
striking when it doesn't work right (eg when I walk into a computer
store and even though I am a lisp hacker, most sales people assume I
know nothing about computers and it is sometimes difficult to persuade
them otherwise).  It would be nice for computers to be this flexible as
well, but to do this right will require it to adjust quickly to a new
user.  If it is too slow, a sophisticated user will become impatient at
being treated as a novice and a less sophisticated user will become
confused if the interface changes too many times...  Yet, it will be
difficult for a computer to gather enough data to judge the skills of a
user in such a short time.  Maybe a more direct approach would work
better?  That is, ask the user something to try to judge his level?

Just some thoughts...
-- 
		- Liz Allen-Mitchell	grian!liz@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov
					ames!elroy!grian!liz
"God is light; in him there is no darkness at all." -- 1 John 1:5b