>John McEwen wrote:
>
>> Kai, you are young and keen. The computer is your hobby. Find a way to
>> make the computer as unobtrusive as the toaster, while allowing computer
>> nerds to play all day if they wish. Just don't let them drive on my
>> highway or use jargon when I want to find out why a message I sent didn't
>> get there.
>
>Hey, calm down. The problem here is we have an industry that is in may
>ways in it's infancy. If computers hadn't changed so much so fast we
>wouldn't need the so called "jargon." You talk about fixing your car
>because it's simple. Put yourself in the place of the average horse and
>buggy user years ago who's first car just quit. Tell me without using
>any of that blasted auto jargon why I can't get there. Don't mention
>carburator, clutch, differential, oil siphon, spark plug, or any of that
>other junk to me.
In the horse and buggy days, knowledge of machinery was far more widespread
than today. It was expected that the purchaser of an automobile would
service it. Have a look at an automobile owner's manual from that period.
Remember that the automobile was a new invention and still largely a
plaything of the rich who could afford to hire a chauffeur who knew
machinery, or was owned by a man who understood the repair needs of the
day. In fact, take a look at the owners manuals of our precious LBCs. A
great deal of knowledge was expected and required. That situation has
changed forever during the past 40 years.
Hardly anybody balks at these words today, they're
>part of our everyday vocabulary.
Whose everyday vocabulary? My wife and daughters? Hardly. Possibly 1 in
20 car drivers could tell you what those things are, and fewer than 1 in 50
could explain them. Probably only 1 in 100 could find them on the average
new car. Have you looked at the engine in a new automobile?
Why do you get so annoyed with computer
>terminology? How else can these new concepts be described? These are
>things that never existed before. Plus a lot of what Kai was describing
>is, unfortunately, stuff you need to know. Like whether your car runs on
>diesel, gasoline, or even LP.
I think you missed my point. I don't question the complexity and diversity
of computers. They are complex machines. So are modern automobiles.
However, the automobile is about to join the 21st century. The computer is
still where the automobile was 60 or 70 years ago when cars were sold to
men who had to understand how they worked and what every part did in order
to keep them on the road. Cars grew up. Today,although fewer than 5% of
drivers could even locate the parts of the engine which we LBC lovers take
for granted, they still use cars effectively. They don't want or need to
know what is happening under the hood.
Computers must be this way for the majority of users and probably could be
this way if we could get the computer engineers, programmers and sales
persons to understand that the consumer doesn't want to understand - he
wants to use. I challenge your statement that I need to know a great deal
of complex terminology or understand the construction of a microchip to use
a computer. I have been using a Mac for 13 years. I still don't know what
a bit or a byte is. I know that a meg is bigger than a k. So what? In my
car when the gauge says E I put gas in until it says F. Idiot lights
replaced gauges over 40 years ago.
Today's kid in driving school isn't taught how to adjust timing or alter
fuel flow. He doesn't need to know this and couldn't do the work because
he couldn't afford the tools. A computer shouldn't be a hobby requiring a
passionate interest. It must be a simple, easily mastered tool. I don't
need courses to operate wrenches. Why do I need courses to run another
sort of tool? Yes, I recognize that computers have a lot of growing up to
do. Why are the big computer companies still plodding along, raving about
introducing poor copies of machines marketed 13 years ago? Don't make it
faster or bigger or more complex - make it simpler to use.
Perhaps the problem is like the teaching of mathematics - which is the most
poorly handled part of the school curriculum. It is taught by
mathematicians. It would probably be better taught by good teachers who
didn't know math very well. They would have to work hard to understand
what they were doing - and in the process would learn about the problems of
the learner. They would also quickly learn not to be exasperated by the
difficulties encountered by those learners.
>
>We don't worry about learning new terminology when we take up cooking,
>music, football, checkers, medicine, etc. Why does everyone think
>computers should be different. Even using a telephone has special terms
>(handset, flash, dial tone, busy signal, ring tone, long distance) which
>may be common words but they have specific meanings on the phone.
My earlier statement applies. You are comparing hobbies or avocational
topics to something which has become a fundamental in modern society. I
don't need to know about the terminology of music to enjoy it. If I were
interested in football I could learn about it in an hour. Checkers is
beneath contempt and medicine is a life's work. As for the telephone -
there are few that cannot be mastered in five minutes and the concept is
more than a century old. Explain the complexity of the average PC manual
or the manual accompanying each new application. Hundreds of pages. Why?
Because the jargon is impenetrable.
>
>The computer will never be as unobtrusive as a toaster except for one
>that runs your toaster. Toasters, TVs, ovens, clocks, and all the other
>devices people say a computer should be as simple as are all single or
>very limited purpose devices. A personal computer is general purpose,
>capable of nearly infinite different things. What do you expect to get
>from a computer on the same level as a toaster? You won't get much of
>anything, unfortunately.
Broken down to its simplest form, a computer is a variety of devices
enclosed in a common box. None of the funtions provided is difficult to
understand and all are available separately from telephone to calculator to
filing cabinet and typewriter. When I bought my first computer in 1978 I
had to program it to do anything and it didn't do much. It was a
hobby-toy. Compared to that, my 128k Mac was light years ahead. That Mac
did what I wanted it to do without fuss and without requiring more than
half an hour's worth of training. It was a tool.
Have we progressed? We can do more things and do them faster but the idea
has not changed. Somewhere along the way the technocrats took over and
deemed that we should all clearly understand and be required to execute
every detailed process in the operation. We were expected - as PC users -
to memorize hundreds of keyboard commands and keep a dictionary of these
commands handy when we couldn't remember. Why?
Turn on, point, click, do, turn off. What's the problem? I don't need to
know how my car works. My wife couldn't open the hood on her car if she
tried. She doesn't need to. I don't want to open the hood on my computer.
I just want to use it to do a job. If it doesn't do the job I want
someone to fix it or tell me what to do - in language I understand without
a BSc. I am not a computer hobbyist - which is a concept the average
computer salesman should learn.
Someday we may reach a point where we can
>simply talk to a computer in plain English and it will understand. But
>that's a long way off and even then you'll need to know how to talk to
>it. Think of how much trouble we have sometimes telling other people
>what we want.
>
>I hope I haven't offended, but I make my living in computers and
>sometimes people treat me like some kind of wierdo because of that.
>Sometimes I'm asked by someone what is wrong with their machine, but
>when I try to descibe the problem they fuss because of the "jargon." But
>things are called what they're called. A modem is a modem just like a
>piston is a piston.
Trust me, very few people today know or want to know what a piston is. I
don't want to know a great deal about the mundane sorts of things in my
society. I just expect them to work. I also expect that those who are
paid to keep them working will do so or be replaced by someone who can.
Computers are just another field of technology. And
>like others, one of the first steps to using it effectively is to learn
>the vocabulary.
There are many levels of vocabulary. Unfortunately, the average computer
fan asssumes a graduate level is required. Don't talk about stoichiometric
ratios when a gasket is leaking.
The average service writer in a large automotive shop could demonstrate a
great deal to the computer industry. What is important is solving the
problem efficiently and simply. An elaborate explanation is probably
unnecessary. I spend a great deal of time talking to people on this list
and trying to help them solve auto-related problems. The last thing I
would do is use language of any sort which they plainly do not understand.
Reduce the problem to the simplest terms and solve it. Don't expect the
owner to need to understand the process. Simply explain how you will fix
it. If the owner is literate then your degree of explanation can be more
specific.
Sorry if I sound a bit too passionate about this but it is a situation
which I feel needs addressing. And, like the math teachers, the people who
can do something about it know too much to understand the problem - just
like the auto mechanic who talks down to his customer. He will probably
have to find a regular batch of new customers or go out of business.
John McEwen
|