Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!ucsd!nosc!tetra!embick
From: embick@tetra.NOSC.MIL (Edward M. Embick)
Newsgroups: comp.cog-eng
Subject: Re: Technological overcomplexity in 1523
Summary: Adaptive Technology
Keywords: cognitive engineering, design, comnplexity, history of technology
Message-ID: <693@tetra.NOSC.MIL>
Date: 3 Aug 88 17:54:01 GMT
References: <585@sdics.ucsd.EDU> <17596@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> <587@sdics.ucsd.EDU> <1383@hp-sdd.HP.COM>
Reply-To: embick@tetra.nosc.mil.UUCP (Edward M. Embick)
Followup-To: comp.cog-eng
Distribution: all
Organization: Computer Sciences Corporation, San Diego
Lines: 37

>>John Nagle provides a much more detailed analysis of why the plow is
>>so complex a device.  Plus an anology with modern computerware.  But
>>that now lets us discuss how one should design so as to deal with this
>>apparent complexity.
>>
>I think a better variation on the above, is to provide the user with
>a set of basis operations from which a larger set can be derived.
>So, here's one design rule:
>Design with complexity inversely proportional to usage.
>and it's corollary :-)
>Design with efficiency proportional to usage.
>
>My problem is that I'm not quite sure what is meant by "complexity".  
>(And a whole bunch of other software engineers don't know either, 
> which is why we have programs that only the designers can use efficiently).
>
The ideal approach is to have an underlying design that adjusts the level 
of prompts, and the macro capabilities of the user's commands, to the
perceived level of user competence.  Such indicators as the user entered
command complexity, the way menus are traversed, how often and what type 
of help screens/menus the user calls up, can be tracked and logged. 

The sophistication level of the user could be "automatically" acknowledged 
through more terse prompts, the system "suggesting" macros for repetitious 
actions, and by allowing more primitive (i.e. bit picking) interaction
with the system.  The system would, of course, back off at increasing the
options if user confusion or excessive errors were detected.

Our farmer would have a plough that would automatically adjust blade angle,
ox, horse or tractor, etc., or the farmer could lock the blade and hook
onto a cow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Embick (If God wanted me to write legibly, He wouldn't have invented email)
Computer Sciences Corporation                               ___   ___   ___
4045 Hancock St.         MILNET:  embick@tetra.nosc.mil    /     /     /
San Diego, CA 92110                                        \___  ___/  \___
(619) 225-8401 x287