[9fans] how people learn things (was architectures)

[Laura Creighton <lac@cd.chalmers.se>]

I don't think that Jim Choate and I are talking about the same problem
domains.  I've worked for the Ontario Science Centre as well, though
for fewer years, and I was trying to determine things like `how many
buttons should you put on your exhibit' not `how do you teach hard
science concepts to people who do not have a scientific background
(and can you)'.

But I have had a rather great advantage when studying how people learn
things.  I had access to soldiers (and sailors, and airmen).  They can
be _ordered_ to learn something.  Then you can watch how they do it.
So, from one point of view, a good user interface is something that is
attached to a tool that I can train people to use well in about 3
weeks, given that I can order them to learn it.  Deep conceptual
understanding of principles is beside the point.

For instance, here is a trick.  Sit in a classroom with windows on the
left side with trees and such outside.  Then put a maps and stuff on
the right side.  Stand, either in the back row of the classroom behind
your students, or in the front with your back to them.  Then have them
raise their hands and right click Belgium. Left click the Pine
tree. And so on and so forth.  Train them to point with a not index
finger.  No deep conceptual understanding required ... this is a
``muscle memory'' you want to train into these people.

I get very worried when Jim Choate says that the inability to learn
certain things is based on biological factors.  Any user interface
that requires you to learn lots of theory just to _use_ it, is, in my
professional opinion >badly designed<.  I know too many computer
designers who think that they need to design things differently for
the dumb users, because, after all, they are dumb, and I'm smart.
<NOTE for people who leap to conclusions: I am _not_ saying that Jim
Choate is one of them.> I give these people a kick whenever I find
them.  Anything that encourages them to believe that they can get away
with designing rotten user interfaces because they are biologically
superior to the rest of the world must be attacked with a machete
whenever you find it.  And yes, some of these people are making Boyd's
life less pleasant than it could be because they do indeed like to
make things complicated because their crippled egos (or lack of
judgement, or _something_), desparately compels them to fill their
world with things that they can use to demonstrate how incredibly
smart they are.  The ability to impress other people and themselves
with how smart they are is a #1 motivating factor for them.  The armed
forces of the world know all about this human weakness and have
designed strategies to elmininate it.  Unfortunately it is harder to
take these lessons and stick them to the people who are not in the
military and who also desparately need them.

New demonstration:  How many of you understood that the reason that you
have to stand behind your students or with your back to them is so that
your right and their right will be the same direction?  My technique
of teaching people how to right-click will work even if you just do
what I say without understanding this point.  See what I mean when
I say deep understanding is beside the point?

One problem I keep running into is the fact that computer people, in
general, do not understand how people who are not scientists and
engineers learn.  Most especially they do not understand how people
who are not enjoying learning what they are learning learn. They don't
watch how _they, themselves_ learn things they don't enjoy all that
well.  One thing that is very common is to learn by complaining about
how hard it is to learn something.  Nerds do this as well, but they
tend to complain about how hard it is to learn to do some physical
sport, or some meaningless social convention, or in some countries
their taxes ...  This makes it hard to tell whether a complaint about
that something is hard to learn to use should be filed under `fix
your design' or `he is just learning'.

Some designers are busy trying to make sure that their user interface
is inherantly _enjoyable_, or, in a Walt Disney sort of way
_entertaining_. They want to give people an enjoyable experience.  And
if they are designing a tool that people use once a year or so ... ie
they will always be naive users ... then they are tremendously
successful, as they will be when the demands of being enjoyable do not
conflict with the demands of good for accomplishing a lot of useful
work.  But the interface that somebody uses to book a vacation trip
once a year on a web form is generally not the interface that the
professional travel agent wants to use to book hundreds of trips every
day.

Quote:  ``I don't want to understand what I am doing, I just want to
know how to do it well.''  This is a very common empassioned plea of
somebody who wants to be well trained in how to use a thing.  This
person doesn't want to waste his valuable time thinking about
user interface design or the client-server architectures or anything
like that.  They have their own problem domain and they want to keep
their minds on _that_ while they are using a tool to get real work done.

I want my tax form to work like that too.  There world is full of
things I don't want to understand because I know I am mortal and I
am going to be dead before I understand all of them.  I need to
prioritize what I learn, even though I think that learning is fun.

Please assume that the person you are writing your user interface for
is about twice as hard working as you are and that they have a much
more important, challenging, and interesting job than you do.  Then give
them the tool that lets them get major amounts of work done in their
chosen field.  This is much more profitable than designing for
artichokes.

Plan 9 relevance?  I don't know of anybody who is using plan 9 to do
anything but program, and play music, and people are using
their Bitsy to be a PDA.  So of course Plan 9 is cool for programming.
Anybody out there using it to do something else?  If so, can you speak
up and tell us what interface(s) you are using, and if you want any
changes?  Can you also indicate how long you have been using this
interface, since I think new-user-problems are rather different than
experienced-user-problems?  There. Now we get some data on whether we
need to change something.  My personal belief is that, repetitive
stress concerns aside, we don't need to design a new interface. The
problem with Plan 9 is that people who don't want to program say --
what will Plan 9 give me? and then they answer 'nothing', and then
they don't use Plan 9.  The interface is beside the point.  Somebody
speak up and correct me if I am wrong.

Laura ... who can't write any more for a while.  I have way too much
real work to do, and a deadline, alas.  But I got up at 5 am to write this
because I care this much about such things.