Xref: utzoo comp.edu:1835 comp.cog-eng:864 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!amdahl!johnm From: johnm@uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.cog-eng Subject: Re: Meter Reading as Computer Literacy Message-ID: Date: 12 Jan 89 01:23:50 GMT References: <12.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP> Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA Lines: 31 In article <12.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP>, guthery@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) [in a comp.edu discussion on the quality of education] writes: > Just when you think it can't get any worse ... New York Bell reports > that they had to interview 22,000 people to fill 2,000 *ENTRY LEVEL* > positions. One of the tasks that tripped up the applicants the most was > reading numerical displays either off a tube or a LCD-type display. > Ya gotta ask yourself what the world looks like to the 20,000 that > flunked the test ... and who is going to be supporting them for the > rest of their lives. . . . . . Before flaming on about the supposedly poor education of the 20,000, I think we should ask precisely what type of displays caused the problem. It seems wrong to me to automatically blame the applicants for what may be a design error (either in the tests or in the meters themselves), such that the meaning of the display is non-intuitive. For example, some styles of utility meter involve reading several circular dials in a supposedly "proper" sequence, with some dials numbered counter-clockwise. The sort of people who apply for jobs as meter readers may not be in the habit of using computer screens much, and could be somewhat intimidated by them. Although re-designing the human interface might make it easier for New York Bell to find 2,000 suitable individuals, it doesn't provide jobs for the other 20,000 in any case. However, their morale might be slightly better, since they would not have "failed yet another test". I'm cross-posting this to comp.cog-eng, because of the human interface aspects of the issue. - John Murray, Amdahl Corp. (My own opinions, etc.)