Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!gatech!prism!isye.gatech.edu!tg From: tg@chmsr.gatech.edu (T. Govindaraj) Newsgroups: comp.human-factors Subject: Re: Human Factors or also called Ergonomics Message-ID: Date: 13 Jun 91 15:52:23 GMT Article-I.D.: isye.tg.676828343 References: <1991Jun12.091705.2823@actrix.gen.nz> <31211@hydra.gatech.EDU> <1991Jun13.000119.4664@cs.UAlberta.CA> <1906@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> Sender: news@prism.gatech.EDU Lines: 65 cohill@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Andrew M. Cohill) writes: >of HF *education* in this country is that many of the classes are >taught by people who are still uncomfortable with computers. These are >professors who acquired both their education and their reputations in a >pre-digital world, and have never really embraced the new technology. Or I agree for the most part. However, this is only one dimension of the problem (however important it may be and is). The fear of computers among older faculty goes beyond problems in human factors education and research. There is another, more serious problem. People who work in human factors have traditionally been working on problems that are not very relevant in the real world. Whereas the problems were once relevant, and there have been significant contributions (even in empirical subfields such as anthropometry), most of the current research has become too "academic". A vast majority of the academics work on toy problems in the name of "science". Most problems have been abstracted so much that not much remains of the original and the contributions to science are questionable, to say the least. In addition to being tractable, toy problems/domains are easier to study; no need to study and understand realistic systems and/or develop laboratory environments where one can do serious research. Developing well-designed laboratory environments in collaboration with people in the real-world is hard and time consuming. Also, one must have the time and patience since the pay-offs (publications, theses etc.) are not immediate. (This can be costly in terms of tenure etc., but that doesn't justify worthless work.) While at it, let me bring up another problem. Traditional human factors (including the Human Factors Society and the journal) seems to favor form over content. Let me give just one example. It doesn't matter how good or bad the work is, you need to submit copies of overheads several months in advance of a conference so that they can be checked for form and format. As long as your statistics is/are correct (again, what is done, not whether it is really a relevant problem to study and report) it is fine. I could perhaps go on and on, if I had the time. I joined the Human Factors Society when I was a student and dropped out a couple of years after completing my doctorate. I didn't find it worthwhile to continue as a member of an organization that was becoming increasingly irrelevant. >Human factors won't begin to have a serious impact on HCI design for >another ten or fifteen years, when some of the old fogies start to >retire from their academic chairs and the digital-era faculty are able >to have a real impact on education and research. I sort of agree here too. I am one of the "digital-era" faculty you refer to and have been for just over ten years. I believe that we* have had a real impact, but modesty prevents me from saying more! :-) (* We don't even call ourselves human factors; we work in human-machine systems engineering within an industrial and systems engineering school that is considered among the best.) >Andy Cohill T. Govindaraj ("Govind" T. Govindaraj +1 404 894 3873 (voice) tg@chmsr.gatech.edu +1 404 894 2301 (fax) tg@chmsr.uucp; 128.61.3.10 School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology 765 Ferst Drive, ISyE-0205, Atlanta, GA 30332-0205, USA