16 Apr
2007
16 Apr
'07
1:44 p.m.
At 04:16 AM 4/16/2007, Warren Wolfe wrote:
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 09:58 -0500, John Foust wrote:
The study of computer-human interaction is an old one; I'm not adept
in its studies and research. Instead of relying on my gut as a standard
of reference, I quoted the one reference to a study that I knew offhand.
I suggest sigchi.org as a starting point if we want to examine
the field to find other relevant studies.
A very casual search there found another study abstract:
Graphical versus Character-Based Word Processors: An Analysis of User
Performance It's All about Choice
/ d'Ydewalle, Gery / Leemans, Jurgen / Van Rensbergen, Johan Behaviour
and Information Technology 1995 v.14 n.4 p.208-214
Abstract: The study investigates how experienced computer users take
advantage of the availability of graphic user interfaces in a word
processing task. Performance time and actions were compared in three
groups of subjects working respectively with WordPerfect 5.1, WordPerfect
for Windows, or WordPerfect V2.00 for the Macintosh. The three groups
did not differ in efficiency: they performed the word processing task
at the same speed. Very few WordPerfect 5.1 users worked with the
pull-down menus; the great majority preferred using the function key
shortcuts. No significant difference in menu use was noted between
the two graphical user interface word processors (Windows and Macintosh).
Windows users did not apply shortcuts to move text, but used menus or
the button bar instead. There was no difference in the use of the mouse
between the Windows and Macintosh groups. While better task satisfaction
is often reported with the availability of graphical user interfaces,
our findings are in agreement with other studies suggesting that experienced
users don't perform more efficiently with such a computer environment.
which might also point out that it's reasonable that we might expect
expert users to behave differently than newbies, and that there are other
dimensions we might want to consider such as "task satisfaction".
See his 1991 book "Tog on Interface",
where he claims in the 80s
Sorry, John, that's simply not true. Casual observation will show
that; there's no need for a $50M study to determine it. While a simple logical case can be made for a human
cause of
the current warming trend, even a cursory examination of the data
already collected indicates STRONG support for the idea that humans play
no, or close to no, role in the current warming. Scientists have
discovered that panic induces increased funding, so, strangely enough,
all of their recent releases are panic-inducing. Those who don't "play
along" lose their funding.
And now you're trolling and have wandering off topic.
- John