The essence of the speakers' complaints was that computer engineers have spent the last five decades designing computers around the newest technology--not for the people who use the machines.
Their complaints can be understood as: (1)new computer technology is applied to limited areas where general public does not care; (2)computer interface is terrible. So why does anyone not agree with their viewpoints?
Computer technology should touch more of our daily lives was what they suggested and I agree. How much was done in this area? Why was the suggestion for us to jump out of the tower case anything wrong?
Computer interface is terrible yes. Window is popular because it's ease to use and consistent interface. Linux is not popular because it's hard to use despite it's powerful and abundant functionalities. So should we care about the general public more (develop more Window-like easy-to-use computer technology) or the geeks more (develop more Linux-like hard-but-powerful stuff)? Another translation of the above question is: is science for the good of general public or the geeks?
As a note to hexx, computer interface course is nothing when you just take it as a course but not implement what you learned. How many computer scientists care about interface? Most will tell you interface design is lame and not interesting. Also they thought users will have no problem using what they designed, and why was there recounts in Florida again?
Computer scientists are supposed to be scientists. Experiments should be conducted to test if an interface is easy to use. Science is so called science in that objective evidence has to be gathered, not subjective beliefs.
Someone who can handle their computer is generally considered more skillful, and seems to have more potential than one who can't.
So much for people who think able to think logic is everything. When are we going to give up our feeling of superiority as a geek and make the computers easy to use. Are we thinking for the good of human lives as scientists?
Slashdot Mirror
The essence of the speakers' complaints was that computer engineers have spent the last five decades designing computers around the newest technology--not for the people who use the machines.
Their complaints can be understood as: (1)new computer technology is applied to limited areas where general public does not care; (2)computer interface is terrible. So why does anyone not agree with their viewpoints?
Computer technology should touch more of our daily lives was what they suggested and I agree. How much was done in this area? Why was the suggestion for us to jump out of the tower case anything wrong?
Computer interface is terrible yes. Window is popular because it's ease to use and consistent interface. Linux is not popular because it's hard to use despite it's powerful and abundant functionalities. So should we care about the general public more (develop more Window-like easy-to-use computer technology) or the geeks more (develop more Linux-like hard-but-powerful stuff)? Another translation of the above question is: is science for the good of general public or the geeks?
As a note to hexx, computer interface course is nothing when you just take it as a course but not implement what you learned. How many computer scientists care about interface? Most will tell you interface design is lame and not interesting. Also they thought users will have no problem using what they designed, and why was there recounts in Florida again?
Computer scientists are supposed to be scientists. Experiments should be conducted to test if an interface is easy to use. Science is so called science in that objective evidence has to be gathered, not subjective beliefs.
Someone who can handle their computer is generally considered more skillful, and seems to have more potential than one who can't.
So much for people who think able to think logic is everything. When are we going to give up our feeling of superiority as a geek and make the computers easy to use. Are we thinking for the good of human lives as scientists?