HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garry@alice.att.com (garry hodgson)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: HCI, CHI, UI, UIT, etc...
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:26:39 GMT
Reply-To: garry@alice.UUCP ()
Organization: AT&T, Bell Labs

In article <1992Sep29.035106.7738@oracle.pnl.gov> d3g450@tnp_op.pnl.gov (MC Pottier) writes:
      I'm putting together a list of jargon for the names of the user interface
    field...so far I have the following names, can anyone think of others?

    HCI - Human computer Interface
    CHI - Computer Human Interface
    UI  - User Interface
    UIT - User Interface Technology
    UID - user Interface Design
    HMI - Human Machine Interaction

In the military (Naval ASW, at least) display biz, the
term used to be MMI, for Man Machine Interface.

More recently, this has become OMI, for the non-sexist
Operator Machine Interface.

-- 
Garry Hodgson			A slow winter day
AT&T Bell Labs			A night like forever
garry@alice.att.com		Sink like a stone
att!alice!garry			Float like a feather
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
From: soh@tmp_ip_003.trl.OZ.AU (Soh Kam Hung)
Subject: Re: repeated motion injury
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:20:37 GMT

S1.SRE@isumvs.iastate.edu (Sree) writes:

>The following is a request for comments from all users of mouse,
>irrespective of what system they use.

>Have you experienced any pain in your hand, especially at the base
>of the thumb and forefinger?  Does this pain extend to the wrist and
>forearm?  Do you experience the pain after prolonged use or even
>after shorter use?

>Recently I was diagnosed with the repeated motion injury.  While
>discussing with my former student, who is now an MIS professional at
>a major firm, we came to the conclusion that use of the mouse is
>more problematic than the use of a keyboard.  In using the mouse you
>exert pressure on the button and if you were to drag to make a
>selection or move the selection then in addition to exerting
>pressure on the index finger you are also exerting pressure on the
>thumb and other areas of the hand.  Depending upon the length of
>continuous exertion, the hand and the fingers are kept under tension
>in an unnatural mode.

>If you agree with this explanation or have pain due to the use of
>standard mouse (one, two, or three button) then it may be worthwhile
>to campaign with the makers of these devices to design a mouse that
>is more anthropometric.  One that conforms to the shape of a closed
>hand (hand that could close around an object) may be more ideal.

I haven't had any trouble with the mouse(s?) on either my Amiga 1000,
Amiga 3000 or SparcStation.  I prefer the ``pregnant'' mouse
on my A3000 since I can close my palm over it.  The mouse for the
SparcStation is rather flat, but it has long buttons which I can press
without bending my fingers too much.  The A1000 mouse had a high back
and responsive microswitches that did not require much pressure to
activate.

I have an ache in my shoulder and neck if I use any mouse too often, so
I have set up my computer user interface to avoid using the mouse.  For
example, to scroll between virtual windows on my SparcStation, I use
the cursor keys, and I use ``hotkeys'' to shuffle windows back and
forward.  The only time I need a mouse is to move a window, pop-up a
menu or (OUCH!) use a dialogue box.  Drawing with a mouse is next to
impossible since I am left handed and most keyboards are not
symmetric.  I prefer to sketch on paper and trace or scan my pictures.

My opinion?  Avoid using a mouse if you can!

Regards,

---
Soh Kam Hung, Network Management Research,     | h.soh@trl.oz.au  
TRL, POB 249 Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia | +61 3 253 6638
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
From: daniel@csgi63.dcs.leeds.ac.uk (D N Crow)
Subject: Re: HCI, CHI, UI, UIT, etc...
Organization: School of Computer Studies, University of Leeds
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 10:26:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: csgi63.leeds.ac.uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Oct1.032219.28875@usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU>, cnquinn@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Clark Quinn) writes:
> In article <1992Sep29.103623.24052@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> daniel@csgi63.dcs.leeds.ac.uk (D N Crow) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep29.035106.7738@oracle.pnl.gov>, d3g450@tnp_op.pnl.gov (MC Pottier) writes:
> 
> >>    I'm putting together a list of jargon for the names of the user interface
> >> field...so far I have the following names, can anyone think of others?
> >> 
> >> HCI - Human computer Interface
> >> CHI - Computer Human Interface
> >> UI  - User Interface
> >> UIT - User Interface Technology
> >> UID - User Interface Design
> >> HMI - Human Machine Interaction
> >
> >MMI - Man Machine Interface
> >HCI - Human Computer Interaction
> >HCID - Humn Computer Interface Design
> 
> I've always been partial to 
> 
> USI - User-System Interaction
> UCSD - User-Centered System Design
> 
> because I feel the principles apply to systems more general than
> computers, and users more general than humans (an exercise I give my
> students is to design a communication system for either dolphins,
> chimps, or cockatoos).  It's also more Politically Correct (tm :-).  
>

It should be pointed out that UCSD is probably a sub-field of HCI/CHI rather
than an alternative term for it. There are other ways to approach the problems
of constructing satisfactory interfaces to systems than the user-centred one,
though one could argue that in the majority of cases a user-centred approach
is highly desireable.

-- 
Dan Crow
daniel@scs.leeds.ac.uk
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
From: mfx@cs.tu-berlin.de (Markus Freericks)
Subject: Re: language design tradeoffs
Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany
	<92-09-158@comp.compilers>
	<1992Oct2.153740.1712@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 14:25:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.153740.1712@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil> bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann) writes:
   In article <92-09-158@comp.compilers>, bromage@mullauna.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Andrew Bromage) writes:
   > alvin@eyepoint.com (Alvin Starr) writes:
	[...]
   > Is it really? I disagree completely. If you are thoroughly familiar with a
   > language, then short forms present no problem. Using >> for loop
   > termination (or whatever it is - I don't have my Turing report handy)
   > becomes second nature if you use the language a lot, and so it doesn't
   > become a problem. Another example is the ? : construction from C.

    Isitreally?Idisagreecompletely.Ifyouarethoroughlyfamiliarwitha
    language,thenshortformspresentnoproblem.Using>>forloop
    termination(orwhateveritis-Idon'thavemyTuringreporthandy)
    becomessecondnatureifyouusethelanguagealot,andsoitdoesn't
    becomeaproblem.Anotherexampleisthe?:constructionfromC.

	   The above is the point.  Programs should be written for human
   readability.

Exactly! But do you think that verboseness (i.e., languages designed
to look like prose) is necessarily better for human readability? For
my eyes,

	mid = (hi+low)/2

looks a lot simpler then

	add hi to low and divide the result by 2 giving mid

(ok, this is a contrieved exaple example) Don't forget that people get
used to (short) notations. I think Iverson preaches this for years.

After all, most peoply that use programming languages (and I exclude
things like spreadsheed-macros here!) are professionals who have spent
years of working with these languages.

Aside:

I can imagine that non-ascii based programming languages could go a lot
farther than those of today; I would love to see things like

	n
	__
	\
sum=	/	sin(i)
	--
	i=1

instead of (in ALDiSP)

sum = reduce(+,sin(iota(n)))

or whatever your fave language makes this look like.


Markus
-- 
Markus Freericks	| email: mfx@cs.tu-berlin.de	
TU Berlin Sekr.FR 2-2 	| phone: +49-30-314-21390
Franklinstr.28/29	| priv.: +49-30-872523
D-1000 Berlin 10	|"Inertia makes the world go 'round."
From: mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: AI & User Interfaces
Date: 3 Oct 92 12:29:24 GMT
Organization: ISG Technologies Inc., Mississauga Ontario

dnorman@ucsd.edu (Donald A Norman-UCSD Cog Sci Dept) writes:
> Terms for the Field: I am rather partial to UCSD, myself: User Centered
> System Design (among other things)

University of California at San Diego being one of the other things? :-)

On terms: I like CHI, computer-human interaction, simply because it is
pronounceable (esp. if you know any Greek at all).  It has the danger of
placing computers "first," which can alarm some people.  
--
              Mike Sellers      User Interface Team Leader
           mike@isgtec.com      ISG Technologies, Toronto, Canada
              "Actum ne agas" -- Do not do what has been done.
                         Furare tantum ab Optimis
From: bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: language design tradeoffs
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:37:40 EST
Organization: Logicon Technical Services, Inc.

In article <92-09-158@comp.compilers>, bromage@mullauna.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Andrew Bromage) writes:
> alvin@eyepoint.com (Alvin Starr) writes:
> 
>>Is a little verbosity a bad thing? I work with a language(Turing) that will
>>allow short forms so that 
>>	if a < b then 
>>		x := y
>>	end if
>>  can become
>>	[a<b:x:=y]
>>  the second is much harder to maintain when an 80,000 line program is
>>  completly written this way.
> 
> Is it really? I disagree completely. If you are thoroughly familiar with a
> language, then short forms present no problem. Using >> for loop
> termination (or whatever it is - I don't have my Turing report handy)
> becomes second nature if you use the language a lot, and so it doesn't
> become a problem. Another example is the ? : construction from C.

 Isitreally?Idisagreecompletely.Ifyouarethoroughlyfamiliarwitha
 language,thenshortformspresentnoproblem.Using>>forloop
 termination(orwhateveritis-Idon'thavemyTuringreporthandy)
 becomessecondnatureifyouusethelanguagealot,andsoitdoesn't
 becomeaproblem.Anotherexampleisthe?:constructionfromC.

	The above is the point.  Programs should be written for human
readability.

Brett--------------------------------------------------------------------------
	"Why the courts don't tell a husband who has been living off his wife
to go out and get a job is beyond my comprehension."--Joan Lunden
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
From: sonix@schunix.uucp (Duane Morin)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: How would you explain this to a user...
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:39:18 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SCHUNIX Public Access Unix for Worcester County, Massachusetts, USA

We've reached a crossroads in the development of our product and it's time
to rethink a certain piece of the interface.  We all know what we've got
stinks, our customers have told us that it stinks, but we've all been looking
at the problem for so long that we can't come up with anything original to
use instead.  So, let me ask the wisdom of the net for some opinions:

The task in question is a diagnostic scan (used as part of a medical device).
In order to test that the equipment is working properly, a scan is made.
A scan, here, would be an ultrasonic pulse that is read in as 4096 datapoints.
This scan can then be manipulated in any way we want to compare it against
an "ideal" trace (again, a trace that has been manipulated) and check to 
make sure that it is within a particular tolerance.  Currently, we manipulate
the scan by taking an FFT of it.  Using this, we can examine the characteristic
of the wave that made it fall out of tolerance and correct the problem.

Currently:  The FFT is taken on 4096 points, and the most relevant 25pts are
kept and displayed.  The ideal trace is saved as a baseline of 25 pts, with
a tolerance (that varies from one end to the other).  Both traces are 
graphed, and the user is essentially shown whether or not the line falls 
within the envelope.  

We are trying to redefine this so that it will be more intuitive to the users.
Some sort of analogy toward "hitting a target" or somesuch may work.  

Keep in mind that our audience of users are medical technicians.  They do 
not need to do diagnosis themselves (although a system that would allow the 
software to internally analyze the problem would be nice).  All the user's
task should be is to look at a picture and see whether or not it has passed
or failed the diagnostic test.  If necessary, they will be able to print 
this picture and send it to us for diagnosis.

Can anyone point us in a new direction for looking at this problem?

Thank you for any advice/assistance,
 Duane Morin
 Walker Sonix, Inc.
 Worcester, MA 01604
 sonix@schunix.uucp
From: K.R.Catchpole3@lut.ac.uk
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Dipmloma in Professional Studies
Date: 5 Oct 92 12:54:30 GMT
Reply-To: K.R.Catchpole3@lut.ac.uk
Organization: Loughborough University, UK.


	I am currently an Ergonomics undergraduate at Loughborough University
and am looking for somewhere to spend next year (July 1993-September 1994) 
working in the industry before I return to take my final exams in June 1995.
As I have both American and UK citizenship (though have actually never lived
in the US) and the Human Factors oportunities are so excellent in the US, I 
would like to find a position there. Unfortunately I have no contacts and have
no knowledge or addresses of companies which might consider an application 
such as mine.

	I would therefore very much like to hear from anyone who could get me
in contact with such a company or give me any advice on the subject.

My e-mail address is : k.r.catchpole3@lut.ac.uk

	Thanks in advance

		Ken Catchpole.
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
From: m20163@mwunix.mitre.org (Nahum Gershon)
Subject: How to Lie and Confuse with Visualization
Summary: Learning how to produce faithful visualizations through how not to do i
Keywords: visualization, human-computer interface, human factors
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:13:36 GMT




"How to Lie and Confuse with Visualization"


	People have lied with statistics and maps for years.  Now it's time to look into lying and confusing in the field of visualization.  Your big chance to do just that, in the open, will be in this special session of Visualization '92 Conference on Tuesday, October 20, 1992 at 7:00 pm.  You are invited to bring with you visualization lies and confusing articles, yours or others, on 35 mm slides or video.  During this evening, it will be allowed to lie but not to borrow credit, so please do not forget to ment



ion the producers' names.  After the informal presentations and truthful debates, the audience will choose the biggest (visualization) lie for 1992.  When the evening is over, lying will be outlawed again.  Then, we will be all able to benefit from this teaching of what it takes to produce realistic and faithful visualizations.

	Reservations and advance submissions are now being accepted (c/o Nahum Gershon, The MITRE Corporation, 7525 Colshire Drive, McLean, VA 22102).  Both are not required but are strongly recommended.  For more information (genuine!), please contact gershon@mitre.org or (703) 883-7518.
From: mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: Mandatory vs. Optional Values in Forms
Date: 26 Sep 92 16:32:50 GMT
Organization: ISG Technologies Inc., Mississauga Ontario

sdpage@andersen.co.uk (Stephen Page) writes:
> jaime_guerrero@afs.com writes:
> >The only required field that I can justify is a password
> 
> But there are plenty of other examples. [...]
> While I agree that default fields should be used wherever possible, there are
> still plenty of problem areas. I would love to see a decent solution to the
> visual-cue-for-mandatory-field problem.

Here's some possibilities (free!) off the top of my head:

In a Motif-type environment, how about making the background color
for optional text-entry areas (say) a light (85%) gray, and the background
for required areas white?  This would draw the eye to the required fields,
while still leaving the others readable and obvious.  Similarly, you could
play with the shadow heights/depths, or segregate all required fields within
a single area with a lighter background area around them.  Or maybe just 
make the required fields larger than the others.

All of these play on enhancing the attentive qualities of the field by
increasing their perceptual importance:  make them more obvious, and the
user is more likely to attend to them, and even ascribe greater value to
them.  Whether the user will understand the first time that they represent
required fields would have to be determined from direct user testing.  
There are doubtless other ways in which the perceptual channel could
be used to this same effect.

Of course, your mileage may vary. :-)

--
              Mike Sellers      User Interface Team Leader
           mike@isgtec.com      ISG Technologies, Toronto, Canada
              "Actum ne agas" -- Do not do what has been done.
                         Furare tantum ab Optimis
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: Mandatory vs. Optional Values in Forms
Date: 23 Sep 92 12:05:22 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

sdpage@andersen.co.uk (Stephen Page) writes:
> jaime_guerrero@afs.com writes:
> >The only required field that I can justify is a password
> 
> But there are plenty of other examples. The most common are bits of addresses
> (e.g. title, surname, forenames, nth line of address, postal (zip) code etc)

AAAAARGHHH!

Name fields must NOT be required fields.  What do you expect me to do, make
up a middle name and surname?  I'm by no means unique, either.  I know
someone called "Wookey", and then there's "Green", "Freff" (although I think
he now has a surname), "Sting" and so on.

Plus, of course, people with various titles are referred to by one name; I
think the Duke of Norfolk would give his name as "Norfolk", for example. 
There are similar rules for some CofE clergy.

Then there are all the non-WASPs who have only one name, or who have two
names but who it is very impolite to refer to by both names, or who always
write the surname first and the forename second.

Then you have to deal with titles.  "Mr / Mrs / Miss / Ms" isn't enough;
adding "Other" doesn't help, as the title might not come at the start of the
name.

In short, developing a sensible database to contain name information is
difficult.  Unfortunately, most programmers who develop database systems think
everyone has a name of the form "John R. Smith"; possibly because people who
develop databases generally don't get out and meet people enough.

Addresses are no easier.  "No. 1, London" is a completely valid address.  So
is "BM Bozo, WC1 2QX".  (The postcode's wrong on that, I can't be bothered to
look it up.)

Basically, for names you have to have the information stored multiple times
in free-form; for example, as a salutation, as a first line of an address, as
a name for putting on official documents, and so on.  You can optionally have
"surname" and "forename" and "middle name" fields for searching on, but they
will not necessarily be non-empty, and you can't use those fields to assemble
a proper greeting for, say, a bit of junk mail.  Readers' Digest found that
out when they sent junk mail to a "Mr Charles Windsor" of "No Buckingham
Palace".


mathew
-- 
"When nothing's funny it gets easy to laugh 
 at the drop of a hat, or a bomb" -- DEVO
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: RSA's faq hosed up?
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:03:34 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

In sci.crypt, cepek@vixvax.mgi.com writes:
> Several people have reported that RSA's postscript versions of their
> (reportedly very nice) FAQ didn't print for them.  It didn't for me either.
[...]
> For the record, I'm FTPing to a VAX (VMS) (yes, in binary mode), using
> LZDCMP to un-.Z it, and sending the resulting postscript file to our 
> Digital LN03 laser-printer.  I have tried all three versions:
> 	"Big" version:         Symptoms A and X
> 	"Low Memory" version:  Symptoms B and X
> 	Pages 1-10 version:    Symptoms A and Y
> 
> Symptom A:  Postscript job terminates with the following error message:
>   %LPS-W-TYPCHK, typecheck: Argument of wrong type - offending command is sho
> 
> Symptom B:  Postscript job terminates with the following error message:
>   %LPS-W-UNDEF, undefined: Name not known - offending command is -
> 
> Symptom X:  Cover page and TOC pages i through iii printed (only)
> 
> Symptom Y:  Cover page and TOC page i printed (only)
> 
> Also, as previously reported, some of the characters on the title page
> overstrike each other (the rest of the output looks fine).

Who was it who was arguing that Postscript was a great device-independent way
to distribute documents?


mathew
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: RSA's faq hosed up?
From: alanb@sdl.mdcbbs.com (Alan Braggins)
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:57:39 GMT
Organization: Shape Data (Division of EDS), Cambridge UK
In-reply-to: mathew@mantis.co.uk's message of 28 Sep 92 14:03:34 GMT

>>>>> On 28 Sep 92 14:03:34 GMT, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) said:

> In sci.crypt, cepek@vixvax.mgi.com writes:
>> Several people have reported that RSA's postscript versions of their
>> (reportedly very nice) FAQ didn't print for them.  It didn't for me either.
> [...]
>> For the record, I'm FTPing to a VAX (VMS) (yes, in binary mode), using
>> LZDCMP to un-.Z it, and sending the resulting postscript file to our 
>> Digital LN03 laser-printer.  I have tried all three versions:
[Problems with printing omitted]

> Who was it who was arguing that Postscript was a great device-independent way
> to distribute documents?

No one - someone suggested it was better than a (Mac) binary which relied on a 
specific application. I see nothing in the above post to disprove that.
--
Alan Braggins, Shape Data (A Division of EDS Ltd), Cambridge, UK +44-223-316673
   "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
 "My employer does not necessarily share my views - but I'm working on it."
From: gb@cup.portal.com (Greg A Buechler)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Usability Specialist
Date: Mon,  5 Oct 92 11:19:55 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world


OK, I know that the misc.jobs.offered group exists, and I posted there
several times.  On this occasion I thought it better to go right to the
source....you folks.

I am presently trying to find a junior to intermediate level Usabilty
Specialist to work on new applications software (desktop produtivity
applications and related documentation.)

This position is a contrat assignment (min 3 months, prob 6 - 9) and 
has some (25%) travel associated with it.

Well, if you know of someone that is looking to do this type of work,
I'd very much like to talk with them.  I can be reached via e-mail,
fax, phone, snail-mail, etc.

Thank you for your time.

Greg Buechler
ORYX
3235 Kifer Road, Suite 340
Santa Clara, CA  95051

gb@cup.portal.com
408.481.0106 (voice)
408.481.0112 (fax)

p.s.  I applogize if you feel this is totally innapropriate that I posted
to this group.  You may flame all you like, but remember....I'll then know
how to reach you better  ;)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
From: asper@time.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper)
Subject: Re: Audio in Interface
Organization: Southwestern Bell Technology Resources, St.Louis, MO
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 14:08:11 GMT

In article <HASEGAWA.92Oct1011335@hcrlgw.crl.hitachi.co.jp> hasegawa@hcrlgw.crl.hitachi.co.jp (Takashi Hasegawa) writes:
>
>I'm also interested in this category of research, so I'd like to get
>the book named "The Handbook of Human Factors".
>
>Please inform me which company publish it and the number of ISBN.
>

Salvendy, G. (ed.) (1987) Handbook of Human Factors. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
ISBN 0-471-88015-9

Another good reference is Salvendy's Handbook of Industrial Engineering, 
ISBN 0-471-05841-6

Good luck,
Alan

Newsgroups: comp.human-factors