Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site ulysses.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxa!ulysses!gsp
From: gsp@ulysses.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.cog-eng
Subject: net.cog-eng name re-considered
Message-ID: <574@ulysses.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Aug-83 21:40:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: ulysses.574
Posted: Thu Aug 25 21:40:01 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Aug-83 12:13:34 EDT
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 65

Regarding Markku Hakkinen note "Cog-eng or is it HF?,
I would like to add my two cents worth.

First, Human Factors (HF) to me is "the study of the
factors that affect humans," especially if not exclusively
in technical areas.  In the past, when technology was
synonymous with machinery, HF was knobs and dials research.
Many people today, psychologists included, belittle the work
done on making machinery work cooperatively with people.
Those who have tried to do it know how hard it is to do,
but anyone can appreciate something that fits like a glove
and be annoyed by something that doesn't (how about your mother's
tea cups?).

The name "cognitive engineering" to my knowledge, was coined by
Don Norman.  I have no definitiion of his in front of me, but
I think I am safe in saying that cognitive engineering is a sub-part
of HF that deals with cognitive factors in dealing with technology
(machines, and more recently, computer systems).  Don's interests
in cognitive engineering stem from his theoretical work on errors
and what causes people to make them.  He has strong interests
in aviation safety, in the sane design of nuclear power plants
(especially their controls), and, of course, in computer systems.
By that reasoning, the discussion of terminal screen colors does
not belong in net.cog-eng, but would in a human factors group.
Similarly, net.cog-eng includes topics like designing control panels
of stoves so that people don't make mistakes when turning on burners.
Cognitive engineering is not restricted to human factors in computer
systems.

Ben Schneiderman formed the Software Psychology society after
the appearance of his monumental book by the same name.  For my
purposes, such a newsgroup would be more in line with my interests
than cognitive engineering in general.  Perhaps this is true even
for the person who created the news group.  Since the formation of
ACM Special Interest Group (SIG) on computer-human interaction (SIGCHI),
Ben's group seems to have lost impetus, but then, I have not been looking.

The formation of the a human factors news group is long overdue.
I found that some issues of interest were discussed in net.works
(work stations), fa.human-nets, and in the unix groups.  Certainly,
there has always been motivation to creating the right groups for the
right topics.  I think Markku Hakkinen was right in questioning the
name of this group and in suggesting a broader base of HF groups.
I disagree with his categorization of both human factors and of
cognitive engineering.

But this is quibbling.  Here are the groups I wuld like to see:
	net.hf        human factors (short so people wont mistype it)
	net.hf.soft   HF software issues subgroup (esp. user-interfaces)
	net.hf.hard   HF in hardware design (esp. terminals)
"hf" might be replaced by another token, depending on your camp:
	UCSD	hmi (human machine interaction)
	PARC	chi (computer human interaction)
but I prefer hf as it is generic and can expand into subgroups.

Under this scheme, cog-eng goes away and is replaced by hf.soft.
Discussions of issues in HF other than computers can be placed in
net.hf or be placed in subgroups (eg: net.hf.control for control
systems of planes and plants).  I suspect that the average net user
is primarily interested in the computer aspects.  Now, who is going
to change these names?  Not me!  I don't know how.  Is there a
Horton in the house?

	Gary Perlman	BTL MH 5D-105	(201) 582-3624	ulysses!gsp