HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: weh@sei.cmu.edu (Bill Hefley)
Subject: Re: HCI/User Interface Reading List 
Followup-To: comp.human-factors
Summary: HCI Curricula Exists!
Keywords: SIGCHI, ACM, HCI, curriculum, syllabus
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:56:14 GMT
Expires: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 05:00:00 GMT

In article <BuA14J.II5.1@cs.cmu.edu> fmm+@CS.CMU.EDU (Francesmary Modugno) writes:
>
>I am looking for reading lists or syllabi
>from general survey-like seminar or courses
>in Human Computer Interaction or User
>Interfaces.  If you have one online, please
>send it to me (fmm@cs.cmu.edu).  If it was
>a reading list for a course or seminar, a brief description of the goal of the course
>(or preferably the cours syllabus) would
>be helpful, so I know the intended purpose
>of the list.

A really good source of this sort of information is the recently published ACM
SIGCHI Curricula for Human-Computer Interaction (ISBN 0-89791-474-0).  The
result of a long effort that began in 1988, the ACM's SIGCHI (Special Interest
Group on Computer & Human Interaction) Curriculum Development Group has
completed a curricula in human-computer interaction.  Included in this
curricula are extensive readings lists and references, as well as several
appendices showing HCI material taught in a variety of settings - CS, IS, etc.

The "ACM SIGCHI Curricula for Human-Computer Interaction" (ISBN 0-89791-474-0)
is available for purchase from the ACM Order Department.  This book has been
assigned the ACM Order Number 608920.  The Order Dept. can be reached at P.O.
Box 64145, Baltimore, MD 21264, U.S.A., +1-800-342-6626, +1-410-528-4261
(outside MD, AK or the U.S.A.).  The cost is $24 for SICGHI or ACM members and
$30 for others.

Bill Hefley
Editor, SIGCHI Bulletin


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Hefley, SEI-2218, Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213  U.S.A. 
Office: (412) 268-7793 , Fax: (412) 268-5758, internet: weh@sei.cmu.edu
From: neil@cadreor.cadre.com (Neil W. Van Dyke)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Mandatory vs. Optional Values in Forms
Date: 13 Sep 92 10:23:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: cadreor.1992Sep13.102343.26540
Organization: Cadre Technologies, Inc., Portland Operation

This is probably a neophyte question, but here goes...

Many GUIs allow fields in a form to be made *inactive* or `greyed-out',
indicating that the field is not applicable.

Of the remaining *active* fields, I think it may be useful to have a way of
indicating whether or not a given field is *optional* or *mandatory*.

My first question is: Would this be good thing from an H-F standpoint, or am I
approaching this the wrong way?

If it's a good thing, two more questions:

  1. Should the `optionalness' attribute of a field be able to change
     dynamically, based on changes in other fields?

  2. Any ideas on ways of indicating that a field is optional?  Ways that don't
     stray too far in appearance from the appearance of Open Look and/or Motif?

I would appreciate hearing your ideas on this matter.

[Disclaimer: I don't design interfaces for my employer.]

-- 
Neil W. Van Dyke <> neil@cadre.com <> +1 503 690 1586 <> Fax: +1 503 690 1320
"My employer disclaims that I even work for them, much less speak for them."
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
From: heatherp@ruby.aruba.UUCP (Heather Prudham)
Subject: Re: MS Windows GUI
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 14:59:53 GMT
Organization: Project Zed

In article <laf6jeINNht7@news.bbn.com>, adolce@bbn.com (Anne Dolce) writes:
|>
|>    I think the book you want is "The Windows Interface: An Application
|>    Design Guide" (Version 3.1).  I may be wrong, but I think you can
|>    only get this book when you order the MSW 3.1 toolkit.  The book is
|>    published by Microsoft. There is no ISBN number listed in the front.
|> 
|>    You probably need to call Microsoft to see if you can get the book
|>    by itself.


This guide does come with the Windows 3.1 Toolkit but you can also order a copy  from Microsoft Press. The ISBN is 1-55615-384-8. The phone number is 1-800-MSPRESS. The address for orders and inquiries is:
MICROSOFT PRESS
1224 Heil Quaker Blvd.
P.O. Box 7005
La Vergne, TN 37086-7005   

For orders in Canada contact:
Gage Distribution
164 Commander Boulevard
Agincourt, Ontario M1S 3C7
416-293-8141

-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
Heather Prudham                |Internet Style: aruba!heatherp@uu2.psi.com   
Project Zed                    |UUCP   : ...!uunet!uu2.psi.com!aruba!heatherp
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jonathan@mantis.co.uk (Jonathan Egre')
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: GUIs Considered Harmful
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:54:57 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:

> root@kilowatt.uucp (Kilowatt admin) writes:

> > 	Oh well... BTW - Wonder why I like typing so much? I can type 110+ WPM
> > on a BAD day. I can't move the mouse with that much accuracy.
> 
> Yeah, but how much time have you spent at each task?  I can't play the piano
> anything like as well as I can type, but that's because I don't spend most of
> my working hours at a piano keyboard.

IMHO being able to type at 110+ wpm is an excellent reason for preferring
one system over another (for one's own use), although it's obviously a 
ridiculous reason for declaring mouse-oriented software to be of no use to
anybody.  I happen to believe that teaching everybody to type in school would
be a good idea.

Interestingly, when the typewriter was first conceived it was proposed that
typewriters could use piano-type keyboards; this way, people who could 
already play the piano would be well on the way to typing (an example of 
capitalising on an existing user base), and anybody who learned to type
would also learn to play the piano as a secondary advantage.

Jonathan (who wishes that he could play the piano as well as he types)

--
Jonathan Egre' = jonathan@mantis.co.uk = jonathan_e@cix.compulink.co.uk
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
From: moj@polaris.utu.fi (Matti Jokinen)
Subject: Dvorak keyboard and national characters
Organization: University of Turku, Finland
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 02:25:00 GMT

Are there national variants of the Dvorak keyboard?  I am particularly
interested in Scandinavian, German, Spanish and Hungarian variants.

- Matti Jokinen
From: mem@bnr.co.uk
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Global working
Date: 8 Sep 92 13:40:26 GMT
Reply-To: mem@bnr.co.uk ()
Organization: BNR Europe Limited, London Road, Harlow, Essex, GB


Have you had any experience with working with people at a site remote
to you? Do you telework? Do you have to communicate with colleagues in
a different continent? If so, I'd be interested to hear about the
triumphs and the woes. 

How did you communicate with your colleagues?  What kinds of systems
did you use e.g. phone, fax, groupware, etc?  What worked well and why? What
were the problems you encountered? What adaptations to your behaviour
did you have to make in order to cope with the remoteness of your
colleagues? How did the physical distance between you affect your
working practices? How were the social/managerial relationships in the
group affected? How did you feel about having to work with colleagues
you couldn't meet on a daily basis?

Please email your anecdotes, thoughts, etc. etc. on teleworking and
global communication to:

M.E.Morris@bnr.co.uk

Many thanks ... Michele



From: mem@bnr.co.uk ()
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: Scrolling Across Scrolls
Date: 5 Sep 1992 05:33:56 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gandalf.think.com

In article <186o84INNec@agate.berkeley.edu> bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>Why don't documents scroll like scrolls?
>The scrolls I've seen are rolled horizontally, not vertically.

I think that's a concession to the mechanics of writing and reading
scrolls.  A vertical scroll is harder to lay on an angled drawing table, as
it would roll down.  And even if you design the table to support it
properly, the bottom scroll would probably get in the way of the scribe's
hands.

However, if a vertical scroll were mechanically feasible, I think it would
be preferable, which is why screen documents do so.  When horizontal
scrolling is combined with horizontal writing, you are forced to quantize
the document into pages so that you can first read down the page and then
scroll to the next page (unless you write the document all on one line).
Vertical scrolling permits the reader to move his view of the document line
by line rather than page by page, so that he isn't bound by the random
placement of page breaks (indeed, adding page breaks and headers/footers is
often deferred to the printing phase, so that online reading isn't
interrupted by them and screen real estate isn't wasted.

>Distance through the document should be displayed by scroll-
>accumulators thinning on one side and fattening on the other.

Cute, but I think it's much easier to judge relative position with a linear
scroll bar.
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
From: lk1j+@andrew.cmu.edu (Lawrence Kim)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: American Disabilities Act
Date: 7 Sep 92 06:48:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.8eeqj7i00iUxE1Zb5e
Organization: Senior, Social & Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA



Help !

    I am doing research into accessbility of the 'physically challanged'
at Carnegie Mellon Univ. The main issue is designing a computerized
'Kiosk' that would be accessible to those defined as disabled in the
American Disabilities Act of 1990(ADA) .
    My problem is that my background is strictly in Information Systems
with little exposure to Human Factors or Ergonomics. Thus, I am not
aware of the concerns of the Physcially challanged in terms of GUI, or
plain-interfaces with a computer. 
    I would appreciate it greatly if someone, could direct me to
information concerning ADA and Computer Systems- Such as Intrest Groups,
Hardware and Software Vendors, and guidlines. 

Thank You

Larry Kim 


Lawrence D. Kim                            Internet: lk1j@andrew.cmu.edu
Information Decision Sciences              ATTmail:  lkim@tweel.attmail.com
Carngie-Mellon University
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
From: cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson)
Subject: Re: Moderated Human-Factors Newsgroup
Organization: WORLDESIGN, Seattle
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 05:48:27 GMT

In article <18ed30INNkcr@overload.lbl.gov> bsherman@s27w007.pswfs.gov
(Bradley K. Sherman) writes:

>There isn't nearly enough traffic in this group to warrant the
>need for moderation.  There is already comp.cog-eng which overlaps
>this group.
>
>It's not like the screwy-gui cross-posting interrupted any vigorous
>discussions.  Personally, I like hearing what programmers have to say
>about computer interfaces --after all, they use them more than anyone
>else.

Traffic isn't the only reason for moderation.  The moderator can add
a lot, particularly if she or he is a conscientious reader of other
newsgroups, the trade press, and the research literature and can 
bring these things to the readers' attention.  Also, the moderator
can act to synthesize themes, build an archive, and generally facili-
tate exchange.  Oftentimes it's assumed that moderation stifles a
group, but the fact is, more often than not it has an opposite effect
of increasing energy.

Bob



Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
From: friday@netcom.com (Carol Anne Ogdin)
Subject: Re: Moderated Human-Factors Newsgroup
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 04:48:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In <1992Sep5.075950.4507@u.washington.edu> cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes:


>However, comp.ergonomics seems to be too heavily weighted (by its
>name) to physical human factors.  I might propose comp.interface to
>include the entire realm of person-machine/system relations.


Unfortunately, "interface" can imply hardware-to-hardware circuitry,
too, and might convey the inappropriate message and attract the
wrong participants.

Back in the early 1980s, when I was toiling in the vineyard alone,
I coined the term "Software Ergonomics."  I meant then (and now)
the topic to deal with "How do we design/construct software so it
appeals to the way HUMAN BEINGS process information?"  For that is
the tool at our disposal:  No matter what elegant and powerful
hardware we may develop, it is the software where the ultimate
flexibility resides.

Recognizing that we need to include new modes of hardware inter-
action, too, perhaps a more inclusive term could be created.

On the other hand, perhaps we all cop-out and come up with some
invented term like "comp.hci"  (bleech!)
-- 
---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---
    - Friday -                   "If a miracle happens in your vicinity--
      friday@well.sf.ca.us                            take credit for it!"
      (Carol Anne Ogdin)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
From: hugh@rschp1.anu.edu.au (Hugh Fisher)
Subject: Re: Moderated Human-Factors Newsgroup
Organization: Research School of Chemistry, ANU
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 00:01:57 GMT


  Why do people want to change the name to sci.ergonomics
  or similar? I read comp.human-factors for material about
  designing computer systems for humans - "cognitive
  engineering" still conjures up images of rats and mazes
  for me. As for the recent GUI flood - well, messy,
  imprecise, anecdotal, and generally "unscientific" stuff
  is part of the territory when dealing with human beings.

  Come to think of it, my impression is that the GUI flood
  has occurred because the original posting was to so many
  groups and those who followed up didn't, or couldn't,
  edit the Newsgroups: field. Maybe someone ought to look
  into the interface of news programs.


	Hugh Fisher
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: I can't take this anymore
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:15:59 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

shanks@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Mark Shanks) writes:
> In article <1992Sep2.155522.5333@sbctri.sbc.com> asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E
> >Instead, what I find are sweaty, arrogant computer programmers who (ooooh!)
> >read the Apple styleguide and (aaaah!) are members of Don Norman's growing
> >cult of personality. No data, no research, just baseless opinions and a 
> >conviction that "since I think it is so, and I have worked with these system
> >it is so. And I read POET, so shut up." If I read one more misuse of the ter
> >"affordance", I'm going to hurl.
[...]
> AMEN! As the original respondent to Tom Christiansen's amazing hissy-fit,
> I thought the subject would perish under it's own pomposity. Instead,
> we're getting advice on where to set our coffee cups on our desks. I 
> sincerely doubt if most of the responders have ever worked a day as a
> human factors engineer, or if they have, I pity their clients. Thank you,

Well, I'm (as ever) somewhere in the middle.  On the one hand, I'm pissed off
with the people who post idiotic comments like "GUIs are crap because you
have to move your hand from the keyboard to get to the mouse".

On the other hand, I also get ticked off when white-coat experts start
setting themselves up as some sort of priesthood with its own bizarre jargon.
I'm reminded of self-styled "software engineers" who rattle on about
denotational semantics, specification languages and formal proofs of
correctness but never actually manage to produce anything more useful than a
formally correct "Hello, world".

My idea when I set up this newsgroup was that it would be for discussion of
design principles which software writers could follow in order to make their
software better.  Postings along the line of "I've found it useful to arrange
menus like this, because when we timed users they were that much faster" or
"We avoided such and such, because it confused users who thought it looked
like blah blah".

I don't think either the "Macs are crap because they don't have 3D buttons"
crowd *or* the "Where's your graph of perceived affordance against control
dimensions and colour frequency" crowd are doing much to help.


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
From: cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson)
Subject: Re: Moderated Human-Factors Newsgroup
Organization: WORLDESIGN, Seattle
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 07:59:50 GMT


I second Eric Theise's self nomination to be moderator of the new
moderated human factors group.  His qualifications are right.
However, comp.ergonomics seems to be too heavily weighted (by its
name) to physical human factors.  I might propose comp.interface to
include the entire realm of person-machine/system relations.
From: kevinc@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Kevin Crocker)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: Moderated Human-Factors Newsgroup
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:25:56 GMT

neil@cadreor.cadre.com (Neil W. Van Dyke) writes:

>Does anyone else think it would be worthwhile to have a moderated human-factors
>group?

Depends on the purpose!  If the purpose is to raise the signal/noise
ratio I'd support this move.

>I have no formal H-F training, but I appreciate the opportunity to listen in on
>discussions among *real* H-F researchers and practitioners, and to ask an
>occasional question.

I also have no formal training in HF or HCI, however I do have some
interest in implementation of these topics from a learning style
perspective. I suspect that in my upcoming research I'm oging to have
to call on a HF/HCI guru to develop methods of testing some learning
style reference points. To test learning styles within the domain of
electronic mediated communication requires a passing familiarity with
HF/HCI.  Anyone have some pointers on recent research that links these
two ideas together? (Just trying to round out a lit search).

Kevin
--
Kevin "autark" Crocker (Athabasca University)
kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA  -or-  risk@cs.AthabascaU.CA
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
From: friday@netcom.com (Carol Anne Ogdin)
Subject: Re: Moderated Human-Factors Newsgroup
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 04:30:14 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In <6172@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> estheise@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (eric theise) writes:

>I think this is a good idea.  I'd like to propose that we form a new, 
>moderated newsgroup: sci.ergonomics.  This newsgroup would promote 
>dialogue relating to the discipline known variously as ergonomics, 
[stuff deleted]

>And, yes, I'd be willing to serve as moderator.  More discussion would be
>welcome.

Thank you.  If you build it, we will come.

Let me know what I can do to help.

--Friday
-- 
---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---
    - Friday -                   "If a miracle happens in your vicinity--
      friday@well.sf.ca.us                            take credit for it!"
      (Carol Anne Ogdin)
From: bsherman@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: Scrolling Across Scrolls
Date: 6 Sep 1992 04:25:33 GMT
Organization: Institute of Forest Genetics DataBase
NNTP-Posting-Host: s27w007.pswfs.gov

In article <189gs4INN9mh@early-bird.think.com> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>In article <186o84INNec@agate.berkeley.edu> bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>>Why don't documents scroll like scrolls?
>>The scrolls I've seen are rolled horizontally, not vertically.

>...
>However, if a vertical scroll were mechanically feasible, I think it would
>be preferable, which is why screen documents do so.  When horizontal
>scrolling is combined with horizontal writing, you are forced to quantize
>the document into pages so that you can first read down the page and then
>scroll to the next page (unless you write the document all on one line).
>...

Hmmm ...  I'm not sure that quantizing the document into pages is a
bad thing (ignoring the underlying computational load).  There may
be advantages to the additional "chunking", but I can't back that up
with data.  Lines can still be numbered.
----
    --Brad Sherman (bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov)
From: rick@hci.hw.ac.uk (Rick Innis)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: Moderated Human-Factors Newsgroup
Date: 12 Sep 92 20:32:10 GMT
	<1992Sep5.075950.4507@u.washington.edu> <6499@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>
	<1992Sep8.000157.27787@newshost.anu.edu.au>
Organization: Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University


     Come to think of it, my impression is that the GUI flood
     has occurred because the original posting was to so many
     groups and those who followed up didn't, or couldn't,
     edit the Newsgroups: field. Maybe someone ought to look
     into the interface of news programs.

Funny you should say that: my MSc thesis work includes just this, as well as
some thought on what GUI to computer conferencing systems should include, and
a description of a very limited implementation of one. I'm submitting it on
Tuesday; if anyone wants a copy please say so and specify whether you want
Postscript, text or any format MS Word can write.  And if you ask for PS,
please say what paper size you intend printing on, or you might end up with
A4 :-)

	--Rick.


--
Rick Innis, Computer Science, 	| "Has anyone seen the secret of the universe?"
Heriot-Watt University, 	| said Zebedee, arriving. "I know I left it 
Edinburgh, Scotland.		| around here somewhere."
rick@cs.hw.ac.uk		|  -> My opinions, not the University's. <-
From: cohill@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Andrew M. Cohill)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: Moderated Human-Factors Newsgroup
Date: 7 Sep 92 13:21:15 GMT
Organization: Fire in the Mountain


f this goes to a vote, we will probably end up with several alternative
names.  I prefer sci.ergonomics.  In fact there have been a number of
non-interface issues discussed here, like carpal tunnel syndrome
(anthropometry), light switches and elevator buttons (consumer products,
industrial design), and some other odds and ends. 

Sci.ergonomics will not preclude an emphasis on interface design, but
correctly identifies the group as a place for a variety of topics on
ergonomics.

I also prefer ergonomics to human factors, and I suspect that when the
votes are tallied, the HFS will be the HFES, come October 12th.

Andrew Cohill
Associate Editor
Ergonomics in Design

-- 
|          ...we have to look for routes of power our teachers never       
|              imagined, or were encouraged to avoid.   T. Pynchon          
|                    
|Andrew Cohill        cohill@vtserf.cc.vt.edu            VPI&SU                                                  
Xref: sparky comp.human-factors:2199 comp.windows.misc:1420