Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!mark
From: mark@umcp-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.cog-eng
Subject: Re: User-Friendly Re-Defined Access-Efficient
Message-ID: <2378@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 2-Sep-83 21:53:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2378
Posted: Fri Sep  2 21:53:47 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Sep-83 13:56:59 EDT
References: ittvax.985 <989@ittvax.UUCP>
Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 26

A group of Ben Shneiderman's students did an experiment comparing
the effect of nasty vs. friendly error messages from a compiler
on the ability of programmers to figure out what the problem was.
The messages had exactly the same content about the problem,
but simply took a different attitude.  The friendly message
group did better (but there were methodological problems and
the experiment needs repeating to be sure).

Therefore the tone of messages from the computer does make a difference.
So what do you call that?  Why not 'user-friendly'? 

Languages need to grow to express the new problems and solutions of
humanity.  Ease of interaction with machines is one of those
new problems, and 'user-friendly' software is one of those solutions.

I don't have any difficulty distinguishing between the friendship
I have with machines and the friendship I have with machines,
no matter what terms I use.  People have been talking about
friendly non-human things for thousands of years (rocks, trees,
sprites, gods).  It isn't dangerous--its organic!
-- 
spoken:	mark weiser
UUCP:	{seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!mark
CSNet:	mark@umcp-cs
ARPA:	mark.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay