Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!n8emr!cmhgate!Adam.Frix
From: Adam.Frix@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Wordprocessists not typists?
Message-ID: <65810.26C816E8@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG>
Date: 12 Aug 90 21:22:25 GMT
Organization: Net 226 Fido <==> uucp/usenet gateway - Columbus, OH
Lines: 67

Conway Yee   writes in a message on 08/10/90 at 16:15:11 ...

CY>  This appears to be another attempt to propagate Newspeak.  The 
CY>  word typist adequately describes the function of someone who 
CY>  uses a word processor to type documents.  The only difference 
CY>  is the tool used: a word processor vs. a typewriter.  The important 
CY>  thing is the function of the person, not the tool used.  Thus, 
CY>  the invention of a new word serves merely to confuse not clarify 
CY>  the situation.


Back in '84-'86 I worked for a major chemical company, in their corporate credit
department, and I operated a terminal on an IBM 5520 word processing mainframe.
 This was a _great_ machine, and I used it to its potential and then some; however,
the person who worked alongside me in the same capacity had absolutely no computer
experience or background, and used the thing as a big, expensive Selectric typewriter.
 She never learned, nor had the inclination to learn, how to automate the tasks
put to her.  She filled in form letters, one at a time, and saved them, one
at a time, and printed them, one at a time, even though she was sending 60 copies
of the same letter to 60 different people.  I could not explain to her about
setting up merge documents, which create final filled-in documents, which only
creates 2 files on the system and required only a few keystrokes per letter.
 Consequently, she ended up working at about one-tenth the speed as I did.

Now, we both typed; however, I was able to use the computer as a computer. 
Did we have different skills?  You betcha.  She was a typist, I operated a computer.
 That in the course of our duties we both performed the same action--using our
fingers to press the appropriate keys on identical keyboards--does not mean
that we did the same thing.

Any computer input requires some kind of keyboard skills.  In that respect,
we're all typists.  We all typed on a keyboard in order to get these messages
into our respective systems.

So, you can sit a typist down to a computer, but you can't make him a computer
operator.  Those people are still typists.  You can sit a computer operator
down to a computer, but not necessarily make him type well.  He's a computer
operator.  What do you have when you sit a 100 wpm typist down to a computer,
and he operates it like nobody's business?  You certainly have more than a typist.
 If it's necessary to change the terminology in order to reflect the changing
technological scene, then do it.  No harm done.  (No language remains static.)
 Call that 100 wpm person a computer operator, with skills that are specific
to inputting words (as opposed to "data entry" people, who are highly skilled
at using computer-based numeric keypads quickly).  Other computer operators
might have other specific computer skills, not related to fast typing.  Big
deal.  They're all computer operators.

--Adam--

btw, this other person I referred to was hired 6 months after I was, at an initial
salary that was higher than my salary after 6 months of employment.  The boss's
reasoning?  "She has 10 years secretarial experience."  I couldn't convince
the computer-illiterate management that I had more job- and equipment-related
skills in my small finger than she had in her whole body (or was ever likely
to have, given her attitude).  Talk about sexism.  I can type fast, and can
operate computers very well.  But nobody at that company knew what to do with
me.  I wasn't female, so the women (who were all clerks) felt uncomfortable
around me, and I wasn't management, so the men (none of whom were clerks, all
were above that level) didn't know how to treat me.  Women aren't the only victims
of stereotypes.


* Origin: See above (1:226/200.2)
--  
Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH
UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!Adam.Frix
INET: Adam.Frix@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG