Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!hsc
From: hsc@mtuxo.UUCP (h.cohen)
Newsgroups: net.text,net.unix
Subject: Re: (Re:)^50 Use of ``vi'' for business office word-processing
Message-ID: <2001@mtuxo.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Sep-86 13:19:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtuxo.2001
Posted: Thu Sep 25 13:19:03 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Sep-86 01:58:22 EDT
References: <1413@bu-cs.bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 11
Xref: mnetor net.text:1016 net.unix:5650

The Bell Labs study mentioned here was by Tom Landauer et al.
They taught a subset of ed to non-computer types with the existing
command names, irrelevant command names, and (I'm not sure
about this last) counter-intuitive command names.  Note that the
ed commands *were not changed*.  Different names were associated
with the *same* one-letter mnemonics (s, a, ...).
Results suggested that the word associated with a one-letter command was
not important.  This generates some interesting hypotheses a propos
the current discussion, but generalization of the results obviously
requires some caution.
Harvey S. Cohen, AT&T-ISL, Lincroft, NJ, mtuxo!hsc