From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laura Creighton Message-Id: <200107130800.KAA02977@boris.cd.chalmers.se> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Cc: lac@cd.chalmers.se Subject: [9fans] how people learn things (was architectures) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:00:27 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: c915d25e-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 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. 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.