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