Book reading: Opening Skinner's Box, ch. 7-8

Chapter 7

I'm unsurprised that rats in a nice environment were less addicted to drugs than those in a bad one; who wouldn't want to escape a bad environment? The various experiments had very interesting results--even with sugar, the happy rats didn't want the drugs.

Computer scientists can use this information to help develop technologies to assists addicts in ending their addictions (like quitting smoking). These technologies could include reward systems for avoiding the substance or simply a tracker for how long they have gone without the substance. Additionally, computer scientists could also use this poChapter 8wer for evil (a poetic exaggeration): they can make their products addictive by providing an escape from the current environment or situation. Many Second Life users used it as an alternate reality as opposed to a game because their Second Lives were better than their real ones.

Chapter 8

The whole memory implantation thing is scary to me. It makes me wonder how much of my childhood is fabricated or dream fragments, and it makes it seem like the entire movie Inception was unnecessary (they could have just mentioned the idea to the target, but I suppose the dream thing was more dramatic. And more awesome). How interesting that people fabricated details of their "memories", like a blue flannel shirt. I know that I am prone to remembering small details if I am told, but am often so belligerent about my own memories that I'm sometimes wrong.

I'm not sure how computer scientists could use this information. It seems a little...evil. Maybe memory recording? Repressed memory depository? I really don't know.

Book reading: Opening Skinner's Box, ch. 5-6

Chapter 5

Well, that's a bummer of a chapter. I feel horribly sad for Linda and Audrey, and I'm surprised by the definition of dissonance and how common it really is; how fascinating that East Asians feel this less (allegedly). It's almost sad that religion is described here as merely dissonance, but I understand the meaning behind it. More and more, I think Lauren Slater may be a little off, but I suppose delving into the details of various psychological experiments might cause a little...off-ness. I wish I had more to say, but in a few words: this chapter made me sad and I didn't like it. So there.

Chapter 6
Wow, Harlow seems cruel. An interesting research topic, yes, and it seems to have made a large contribution to present-day psychology, but it seems so harsh. Poor, poor monkeys. Moreover, I don't appreciate his opinion of women ("...they knew a man was more important than anything else.") At any rate, I am once again fascinated but not surprised by the preliminary results of this experiment. I know I am more attached to the stuffed animal I received when I was a baby than to anything else I received as a child, like music boxes; a poor example, perhaps, but my point stands.

Yikes, it gets worse. A rape rack? Really? Mothers killing their infants, monkeys eating their fingers off, and he continues? Sounds like a sadist to me. This chapter has me very close to becoming a card-carrying member of PETA. Let's think--how do I find products that aren't tested on animals first...?

Book Reading: Opening Skinner's Box, ch. 3-4

Chapter 3
To me, Rosenhan's experiment did not reveal problems with psychiatry itself, but rather problems with preconception; almost everything that (apparently) happened to him was based entirely on the assumption that he was, in fact, mentally ill. It does not surprise me that the patients recognized him as "normal". After all, "It takes one to know one," is a common expression for a reason. It's tragic that the alleged caretakers of the mentally ill at that time were completely indifferent, and I certainly hope care has drastically increased in quality since then.

"The Harvard Test of Inflected Acquisition", while a very interesting and worthwhile experiment, makes me sad for the poor children that weren't given solid opportunities to succeed. 

I don't know if I'd have the courage to repeat Rosenhan's experiment, but kudos to Slater. Again, though, I'm not surprised about the results--as time has marched on, we've distanced ourselves from mental institutions. How sweet that she wanted to share her results with him.

Chapter 4
Darley and Latane's experiment is just as fascinating as Milgram's. Though it's not a study in obedience, it's an interesting view of human tendencies when others are in danger. Quite frankly, the results of this study and Milgram's study are seriously affecting my belief in the inherent good of humanity. It's no secret that we doubt ourselves, yet I wonder: at what point are we okay with making a fool of ourselves in case the situation isn't serious?

This entire chapter (and, I'm sure, a vast number of experiments like the one described) makes me consider exactly how intelligent we are as a species--we certainly act like pack animals, disregarding our own instincts for the behavior of the group. Odd and terrifying. 

Assignment 10: Opening Skinner's Box, ch. 1-2

Chapter 1
One page in and I'm cringing at Skinner--how could he torture his own daughter like that? On the other hand, though, we must consider the time he lived in and the "appropriate" treatments of the day. However, the contributions he made to the field of psychology are apparently vast. When we consider Skinner, we cannot only consider his scientific contributions, but the moral implications of his experiments as well, which undoubtedly will turn this whole book into various shades of gray. (difficult to process for someone as binary as I am)

After reading the author's exchange with Julie, the "unboxed" daughter, I find myself more sympathetic to Skinner. His book Beyond Freedom and Dignity (or at least Slater's summary of it) makes sense and makes me wonder about the stigma attached to Skinner. As a side note: I think it's odd that she took a bite of the really old chocolate.

Chapter 2
Ah, a familiar subject! Back to Milgram. I didn't really need this second-person rehash; I was already made uncomfortable by imagining myself in the subjects' shoes while reading Obedience to Authority. His mentor's work (tendency to conform) factors into his experiments well, especially in one of the variations discussed in Milgram's book. However, Milgram's desire to do something more socially significant led to his experiment, and the results are still relevant and shocking forty years later. His minor experiments are interesting as well; funny how little people in general change in forty or fifty years. His later personality analyses, though inconclusive, do shed more light on the subject: anyone can be obedient, and anyone can be defiant.

Finding Joshua Chaffin must have been an accomplishment for Slater--how many people would really talk to her about the experiment? Interesting that he broke it off for his own reasons, not because he was hurting another man. Slater describes him as complex, but who isn't complex? Who doesn't have a hard time finding the right moral ground?

How sad that Jacob felt compelled to shock all the way to the end, how his shame converted into obedience. It's good, though, and it solidifies my opinion that the experiment was not immoral; he used the information about himself to become a stronger, better person. Comparing Joshua (the defiant one who led a more obedient life) and Jacob (the obedient one who used that information to become defiant) is fascinating. It makes me wonder about the human mind, but I suppose that's a mystery we've yet to solve.

Book Reading: Obedience to Authority

Chapter 1
The first chapter is merely a description of the experiment and its motivation, preparing the reader for the tough chapters ahead.

Chapter 2
Further explanation of the experiment is necessary--the coming chapters rely on a reasonably thorough understanding of the procedure. The victim looks like a very friendly fellow. I would not want to shock him.

Chapter 3
Unsurprisingly, 100% of people surveyed believed that they would break off the experiment if they were participating. I'd like to think I would, but upon further reflection, I'm not so sure (scary!). Obviously, these predictions were wrong.

Chapter 4
Also unsurprising is the effect of the proximity of the victim to the subject. Shocking what could, in theory, be a completely empty room, is far removed from perceived morality, but shoving a man's hand down onto a shock plate is far more aggressive.

Chapter 5
The descriptions of individuals and their reactions to the experiment are astonishing. The brutal man who barely acknowledged the victim and the Old Testament professor are polar opposites and show the variety of subjects involved.

Chapter 6
Changing small parameters in the experiment (for example, showing that the victim had a heart problem) yielded interesting but not always significantly different results. Women, for example, acted very similarly to men.

Chapter 7
The descriptions of some individuals in the variations of the test are not vastly different from the original descriptions, though there are some slight differences. For example, there is one holier-than-thou woman who rambles incessantly about how "good" she is.

Chapter 8
The transfer of authority had surprisingly little effect on the subjects, except when two authorities disagreed. Perhaps the most surprising result from this set of experiments is that subjects were more likely to break off the experiment if the authority told them to while the victim encouraged further shocks.

Chapter 9
Changing the group dynamics in the experiment resulted in interesting results. Subjects wanted to conform to a group's activity (thus breaking off the experiment sooner if their "peers" did), and were more likely to continue if they were further removed from the actual punishment.

Chapter 10
An analysis of societal hierarchy allows for clearer interpretation of the experiment's results. Understanding how agents (especially humans) work in a hierarchy is vital to understanding why people tended to obey authority with only some resistance.

Chapter 11
This analysis of authority and societal expectations is quite interesting. It never occurred to me that the expectation of the presence of authority is engrained in us from an early age, but it certainly has now. Additionally, I do understand that defying authority can be embarrassing, adding to the hesitance to disobey.

Chapter 12
The analysis of the effect of strain on obedience is unsurprising to me; of course, strain must outweigh the pull of authority to break off the experiment! The effects of buffers on emotional strain are well-known as well. The difficulty in breaking the experiment is understandable.

Chapter 13
Aggression seems to have little effect on obedience in this case. Very few subjects seemed to enjoy their task. (which is, quite frankly, an unpleasant thought)

Chapter 14
Milgram responds to the various criticisms of his work with eloquence and a good amount of data to back up his conclusions. He acknowledges that the comparisons of his work to the actions of Nazis is similar to likening a lawn sprinkler to a monsoon, but he defends his work appropriately nonetheless.

Chapter 15
Milgram's application of his conclusions to the actions of American soldiers in Vietnam is valuable; Nazis were not the only ones capable of destruction. The summary of obedience and its apparent dangers is effective.

Summary
This book is unsettling. I know that I am prone to following authority--I do not like breaking rules, I do not like being in trouble, and I do not like being scolded. Apparently, this is a common thing amongst humans, so I fully understand the hesitance of subjects to break off the experiment. However, I sincerely hope that I would have the fortitude to end the experiment and the suffering of another person. It makes me fear authority and question my own beliefs. I've long been a staunch believer in the good of humanity, so seeing the human willingness to merely give over to authority is disturbing.

The criticisms of this experiment (namely, the "unethical" nature of it) could be considered well-founded; however, I disagree with them. Yes, the subjects may have sustained emotional trauma, but it is vital information about themselves. As with any trauma, it can enhance your life or destroy it. Because no actual harm was inflicted upon the victim, it seems to me that most of the subjects would be able to take this information and use it at a time when it is more critical to question authority.

The results of the various versions of this experiment are fascinating yet expected. The closer the subject is to his/her victim, the more likely s/he is to break off the experiment. It is like talking behind someone's back: it's a lot easier to abuse someone when they cannot easily defend themselves. Additionally, the further removed the authority is, the more likely subjects were to end the experiment. I have observed this in various situations; I'm far more likely to pay attention to a professor if s/he is in front of me than I am to pay attention to a video I was instructed to watch.

Milgram's mention of American soldiers in Vietnam is appropriate but uncomfortable. We abhor the Nazis, yet some similar actions were carried out. I wonder who decides what sort of inhumane actions are to be carried out, and how s/he sleeps at night. It raises an interesting question: is military action honorable? My personal opinions say yes, and I firmly believe in them, but the skepticism is warranted. How can a kind person carry out violent acts under authority and still be praised? It's horrible to think that authority makes good people go bad. However, it must be that an evil person is giving evil instructions....food for thought.

Overall, Milgram's book is enlightening and thought-provoking. Without authority, society would cease to exist, yet to have some semblance of humanity, we must (at times) defy it. It is a conundrum, and we must be aware of our tendencies to blindly follow authority and develop a personal morality system.

Gang Leader for a Day

Sudhir Venkatesh's Gang Leader for a Day was an excellent read; I enjoyed following Sudhir through his six-year study and the development of his relationships with the Robert Taylor residents and the Black Kings gang members. Through the whole book, he seems impossibly naive. How could he not understand the gravity of his actions, like when he discussed the hustlers' incomes with JT and Ms. Bailey? I understand how he got involved--it was almost chance. All he wanted to do was ask a few questions and get out, and he ended up an observer for six years because JT saw that he meant no harm.

As many people have said in class, his naivete seems ridiculous, almost comical, and I'm sure that at least part of it was exaggerated. At first, it was understandable because he had been raised in a middle-class, white neighborhood in California, and gang life in Chicago is obviously vastly different. Even after a few months, one would expect him to learn to shut up for the most part while around gang members and residents. Sure, questions need to be asked, but blabbering to and about everyone in the projects and dropping n-words in conversation is a bad choice (common sense). In all honesty, this is the aspect of the book I found most surprising.

What I did not find surprising was the structure and community involvement of the gang. It's like any enterprise, requiring leadership, organization, and scheduling; why is anyone surprised? In addition, they are the largest and most powerful group in the community, so it's no surprise the gang acts as police, government, and economy in the area. I was also expecting what Sudhir found so unfathomable: the police and ambulances don't go to the projects unless absolutely necessary. Though I have no personal experience with gangs or the projects, I would not expect EMTs to take the apparent risk of entering a gang-controlled area to help residents, especially at the apparent frequency of beat-downs. I appreciate that Sudhir's first response is to contact authorities for help, but certainly he couldn't have expected a prompt response.

The community in the projects was fascinating to me. These people exist almost entirely on their own, working together to survive, and yet, Sudhir thought that they would be very different from any other community. Yes, there are stark differences, like living conditions and enforcers, but the similarities between the community in the projects and any other community are also striking. There are greedy landlords and corrupt politicians (like Ms. Bailey), strong family values, and strong (albeit unwritten) rules of behavior. There is hardly anarchy in this society, and in some ways, it's almost better than other societies. Men still take care of their mothers and provide for their children and offer protection to the vulnerable. The powerful are well-paid because they have demonstrated skill and intelligence, just like in the "legitimate" society, and people must work their way up the ladder. The largest difference I see is reliance on the community, which is a little sad. In our society, we are generally significantly separated from others, only offering or asking for help when the situation is dire. This group, on the other hand, took care of itself.

Ethnography ideas

I've had two main ideas for my ethnography: Texas Aggie Conservatives and Cepheid Variable. After a discussion spurred by a passing comment, a Cepheid Variable member suggested studying his group; they would likely be far more willing to be observed than the Conservatives. I am unfamiliar with both groups. Cepheid Variable has a wide variety of members and could provide very interesting subjects for an ethnography. Because I am politically moderate (leaning towards slightly liberal), it would be a very different and interesting experience to observe the Texas Aggie Conservatives (people on the more extreme end of the political spectrum).

Homework 7: Nonobvious observation

Our filming adventure was, simply put, a disaster. Our plan was to bike from Rudder to the Rattlers convenience store under Sbisa, purchase something small, and bike back. We got through five out of the eight group members, then realized that only the first two had been recorded. Because of the poor feedback (and overall poor design) of the camera, we could not understand what was wrong. Was it the battery? Did the record switch break? Did the whole thing break? We aren't sure. Unfortunately, we were unable to meet all together again before Tuesday. Our experience, however, was very interesting. Our second group member explained why (s)he was wearing a camera, and the next participant encountered the angry manager of the Underground. The manager was insistent that "if we get in trouble for this, it's on you," which led us all to wonder what in the world was happening there. Sadly, this confrontation was not recorded due to the aforementioned technical issues (and we were all intrigued to see how the exchange went down).

It should be fairly simple to tell whose video is whose in most situations. Head movements and others' reactions to speaking could give us a hint; if the person is generally a smiler, people they interact with are more likely to smile (mimicry). Additionally, we can tell how talkative the person is by noticing how much the people they interact with are chatting. It is also obvious how uncomfortable other people are with the person with the camera; some did not want to be filmed and were anxious to look at or be near the user. Self-conscious people are more likely to move quickly, look down, and talk less, while more gregarious or confident people will jabber and make eye contact, almost disregarding the fact that there is a camera strapped to their head. I would expect that men are more likely to talk less, and women are more likely to explain what they are doing and why. Perhaps it's just me, but I was eager to explain that "the camera is for a class project, and I'm not crazy," while some of my group members didn't bother. Any personal appearance out of the ordinary makes me very self-conscious. (interview days and business wear make me feel conspicuous, bad hair days make me feel conspicuous, etc.)

All in all: based on head movements, facial expressions of others, and the apparent amount of talking will give us good clues for guessing which video belongs to which person.

Homework 7: The Secret Life of Pronouns

This blog may or may not have been assigned--the Google doc says no, but I figured I'd toss in my two cents about The Secret Life of Pronouns. If someone analyzed this blog post, I fear what they might discover about me. I suppose I'm tangential...

While reading the first chapter of The Secret Life of Pronouns, I find myself liking the author based entirely on how it's written. It's interesting to note that I didn't particularly like The Design of Everyday Things because I felt like the writing was dour and and grumpy. It was just a few pages in that I realized that I actually liked Pennebaker. Of course, it's possible that it will change if I read the remainder of the book, but his somewhat conversational tone and inexplicable "niceness" is something I enjoy.

At any rate, the development of LIWC is fascinating. I've always known that listening to someone speak or reading their work can tell you something about them, and that communication has a largely emotional component, but to see it analyzed and explained is exciting to the language nerd in me. (I have come to realize that I enjoy the language and artistry aspects of computer science to the mathematics, so I suppose that my interest in this work makes good sense.)

As a personal side note: as I was reading this chapter, I thought back to my own traumatic experience. Long story short: I was on  a class trip on a mountain in Estes Park, CO with several of my 8th-grade classmates and two leaders when I went into cardiac arrest several times. After a helicopter ride to Denver and surgery to receive a pacemaker/defibrillator, I was home in Dallas less than a week later. I only had one or two stints of real emotional turmoil after that, but reading this, I think I understand why--it was never only me, alone, dealing with it. I was forced to share it because it happened publicly, and so it never occurred to me that it should be a secret. I think that's why I'm not scarred as some of the people he described were.

I want to read the rest of this book. Maybe when I have some free time...

Assignment #5: Ethnographies

The first reading (a collection of writers' descriptions of ethnographies) is a nice summary of ethnographies and the importance of anthropological studies.It's hard to have an emotional or personal reaction to a few paragraphs about these authors' career choices, but they are well-written, and the page highlights the importance of ethnographies to anthropologists and sociologists (as well as others).

The Wikipedia article about ethnographies is a detailed history and explanation of ethnographic methods. Generally, holistic ethnographies are necessary; every factor in a culture is vital to its structure, including habitat and communication. Solely focusing on specific phenomena is not without merit, however, like Geertz's study of communication. His cultural "web" structure makes more sense to me than does the traditional "outline" structure because people are not merely grouped by one culture or another. Many bridge gaps between cultures.

One section of this article was of particular interest to me: the ethics section. From the beginning of the class, I've had reservations about working with a group of people that I had no intention of joining. I have felt like I might be violating their privacy and infiltrating their social structure as opposed to helping develop something useful for them. I have come to the conclusion, not only from this article but from some soul-searching as well, that I would like to avoid deception as much as possible. On the other hand, I do realize that some level of deception might be necessary to obtain natural results. "The Unobtrusive Ethnographer" appeals to me most, probably because it involves minimal interaction and explanation. (I'm a terrible liar, so trying to convince people that I fit in will be a huge obstacle in my ethnography)

Coming of Age in Samoa is one of the quintessential anthropology books. Margaret Mead wanted to know if adolecence was a universally turbulent time or if societal structures affected coming-of-age. As a result, she lived among a group of Samoans and observed young and adolescent women; she concluded that a monocultural society afforded less confusion for young people than does a multicultural society like that of the United States. The amount of candor that the Samoans apparently show toward human facts (like sex and bodily functions) shocked Western readers and incurred a great deal of criticism. Derek Freeman's quest to disprove Mead's work resulted in a number of documented interactions with her informants, who claimed that they had lied to Mead. After his work was published, many anthropologists determined that he waged a vendetta against Mead (for some reason) and that his attacks were mostly baseless and inaccurate. After reading this cursory article, I think that Mead was not duped, but I probably lack the understanding to fully make that claim.

Book reading #2: Emotional Design, ch. 1

I don't see why these two philosophies can't coexist peacefully, but I do think that emotional design is very important for some things. Norman's first analysis of design as merely scientific and necessary seems cold and calculating, but this chapter seems very warm-and-fuzzy, and I prefer it. I'm currently looking at a bookshelf I refinished--it serves its purpose perfectly, yet I'm more attached to it than other furniture because I took care of it myself. Some things, though, don't need to be emotionally designed to be used well: microwaves, washing machines, televisions (I'm attached to my television because my parents gifted it to me, not because of its design or its function).

I'm confused that this is allegedly a departure from The Design of Everyday Things. Did I misunderstand him when he wrote about necessary aesthetics in Design? Did he really focus only on usability and neglect aesthetics? That's not how I remember, but I suppose I could be wrong. Obviously, he focuses more on aesthetics here.

The effect of happiness on productivity is obvious to me. When I get frustrated with work, I have to pause and try something that I'm better at so I can return refreshed and able to think more clearly. Of course it makes more sense to design something that makes me happier; why would I use it if it didn't? I have to come back to Design here, though--easy-to-use things make me happy, too. I'll just say that both philosophies have to be used. Useless things are frustrating, and pretty things make me happier, so let's make pretty, useful things.

Once again, I find myself wondering if he's over-thought this system. However, I should reserve judgement and remember that this work is important. It is vital to know how people react to various situations. Visceral reactions are most likely what affect our emotions most; for example, I strongly disliked the UT (sorry, t.u.) campus the moment I walked onto it for a visit for no particular, discernible reason, but I loved the A&M campus. Emotionally, I would not have functioned well in Austin, yet I find myself comfortable and successful here in College Station. Behavioral processing is essentially "programming", as is reflective processing.  I could be "programmed" to use any stove, but I have a visceral reaction to the one in my apartment (the electric heating elements annoy me because it's hard to tell which one is on). I use it anyway because it's available and it makes sense to use it.

All in all, Norman says that he's "changed his mind", but I don't really think so. I think he just considered a different perspective on design, switching from cold and scientific to actually considering the psychology of it all.

Book reading #1: Design of Everyday Things

Overall book reaction: Overall, The Design of Everyday Things seems to me like a 200-page rant on the difficulty of the technology of the late 1980's rather than a universal guide to designs. While the tenets of his argument are applicable to all technologies of modern times, I found it frustrating to read his examples because many of them reference things that have come to be in the last 20 years (e.g. the "pocket calendar" that connects to his home and work systems). I appreciate his analysis of usability and his design suggestions, and I wholeheartedly agree that some things have been horribly designed and continue to be that way. Many engineers have trouble designing their work to be used by the common person, and it's a wonderful lesson for us to learn; of course, this relates directly to human-computer interaction, and I feel that this book has been a good introduction to how to design systems for various users.

Chapter 1: I find it interesting that telephones have experienced such a simplification; the author references analog telephones as failing to have specific hold/mute buttons and difficulty with other functions, yet my iPhone handles these functions rather gracefully. Overall, I agree with the "U-shaped" technological development. Technological development may make things actually more complicated, but it seems there has been a shift to more simplicity in modern times. Continuing with the phone example, telephones once required memorized telephone numbers, but I can now call friends with a single tap without knowing their phone numbers. The complexity required to make this work translates to a simple user interface.

Chapter 2: Yes, bad design makes me feel dumb. I agree with Norman wholeheartedly about his assessment of learned and taught hopelessness, though I certainly hope that no one becomes clinically depressed due to an inability to open file cabinets and childproof medicine bottles. The stages of evaluation and execution are interesting; though I usually do these things quickly, I pay no attention and did not realize that it required so many discrete steps. Similarly, I never would have given names to the difficulty of operating something simple and understanding the environment (the Gulf of Execution and the Gulf of Evaluation, respectively). I did find it amusing that he referenced VHS as an up-and-coming technology, stating "In a while...There won't be any film, just video tape." Any previous dated references (e.g. the pictures of analog telephones) were just steamrolled by a huge one.

Chapter 3: I laughed again at Norman's reference to a miniature computer with a calendar, reminders, and alarms to put in his pocket. (I reached for my phone to put a few school due dates on my calendar a few moments before) However, I find myself nodding once again--he makes good points about our daily lives and how design affects them, especially in dealing with spatial memory and reminders. Like reading the second chapter, I felt myself wondering how many terms for these phenomena are really necessary. Natural mappings are very necessary and obviously enhance the aesthetics of any design because it just makes life simpler. I have long known about the difficulty of swapping short-term memory to long-term memory.

Chapter 4: It's interesting to note that most of Norman's suggestions for visibility have come to pass. DVRs record television shows and tell us what show we're watching, for example. His in-depth discussion of affordances, visibility, and feedback seem like common sense to me, though apparently it wasn't popular in the '80s and '90s (the apparent era of the book). Aesthetics are nice, sure, but we need to keep "function over fashion" in mind. I have a quibble with the light switch in my apartment living room--instead of going to the overhead fan and light, it goes to an electrical outlet. While this does give me a chance to plug in any lamp I want, I found it frustrating to discover this and find which outlet it corresponded with. All in all, I must just say that I agree with him yet again.

Chapter 5: From our beginning classes, we have been taught to integrate error-checking into all of our work. This may seem obvious to us now, but apparently system error-checking was not popular when this book was written. Honestly, it gives me comfort that walking into a room and forgetting why I'm there is not an uncommon occurrence for all people. Understanding the brain will actually allow us to develop better and better interfaces; naturally, we will learn better when our designs match our physiology. I also never really realized the complexity of most games--when we are presented with a wide variety of moves, we are allowed to think more, and that entertains us. Forcing functions surround us; I am particularly intrigued by his statement that a particular law once required cars to alert us to unbuckled seat belts and that the law was repealed. It's back, it seems, forcing us to buckle our seatbelts or endure incessant, loud beeping. Interesting to see things come full circle.

Chapter 6: It's still interesting to see that his predictions for future technologies have indeed been slowly developed over the years. I always knew that the QWERTY keyboard was a relic from typewriters, but I didn't realize why--it proves to be an effective method for typing, even though it initially seems completely counter-intuitive. Again we see that aesthetics are nice, but harkening back to chapter 4, we need to keep the idea of function in our heads instead of focusing on aesthetics. In my opinion, we should design what we need and then make it pretty. However, if it's efficiently designed, not much modification is needed to make it pretty. Designing for specific individuals is difficult but doable, and we need to keep the end-user in mind more than the designer. I'm slightly nervous about the ethnography now because of Norman's observation that designers are often not the users. I suppose I don't understand the problems with featurism--through this whole book, Norman has been extolling the virtues of easy-to-use, multi-featured devices (I assume he loved the Palm Pilot and graduated to an Android or iPhone in good time), but now he fusses about adding too many features. It's hard to address his analysis of computer systems merely because I never experienced the frustrations and revolutions that he did.

Chapter 7: Manuals are tough to read and I don't like them. I think that's the prevalent philosophy, actually, and it makes more and more sense to design intuitive interfaces. Essentially, that's all Norman is saying, but with detailed examples about mapping and possible downfalls of certain designs (like velcro). The technology director at my high school had the perfect sarcastic saying: "Standards are great. Everyone should have one." Norman clearly agrees with this (or rather, the opposite statement, I suppose), as do I. Standardization makes life easy not only for users, but for designers as well. I understand the merits of making things deliberately difficult (like childproof bottles), and I appreciate the well-planned designs for those devices. He speaks again of the possibilities of "future computers", and again I find myself amused.

Good Design:

The iPhone's call screen is a stellar example of good design. All necessary functions are within easy reach, and they are clearly marked and need no instructions. (yes, I called myself for this screenshot)

This is the best cheese grater in existence. It apparently took humanity a very long time to decide that putting a grater over a bowl makes life easier. This eliminates fallen cheese (or whatever you're grating), huge messes, and it even measures it for you. Perfect design.

This hair dryer revolutionized my bathroom organization. It's intuitive (built like every other hair dryer, basically), its cord retracts with an obvious button, and the handle bends. How does it bend? You just bend it. Can't get much simpler than that. It's a relatively low-cost feature that makes this thing awesome. Fantastic. (for anyone who doesn't know about hair dryers--that's a diffuser, not a ray gun attachment, and it's used for curly hair) 

The built-in plugs in the tables in the new engineering building (ETB) are excellent. The lid has an opening on one side with enough room for fingers to lift it; it's clear which side it opens on, and the plugs include power, USB power, and Ethernet. It's very convenient for working on campus with our various electronics.

Poor Design:

Strangely enough, I love my vacuum cleaner. I have only one gripe, and it is the two buttons on it. One retracts the cord and one turns the machine on; they're the same size, shape, and color, and they even have very similar symbols on them. Why couldn't they have made the cord symbol a little squiggly line or made the button black or blue?

I love my car, too, and I love that it has an auxiliary audio input. However, the little door to the audio jack flips down, not up, and it's hard to hold it with one hand while plugging in the cable. Granted, flipping down keeps it from getting in the way of the power outlet, but it's still frustrating. I'm not even sure why a little door is necessary.

I hate this type of light fixture. Changing the lightbulb requires removal of screws (if you can find them while straining on top of a stepladder) and perfect replacement of the bowl when you are finished. One errant screw and the glass breaks. A screw-in bowl or something similar would be a great replacement for this difficult design.

This fan is counter-intuitive. The rotating switch goes from off to high to medium to low. Why doesn't it go from off to low instead? It's flat-out dumb. I have to switch it quickly if I just a slight breeze instead of a tornado in my bedroom (it's a powerful little fan).

The shower control in my bathtub is terrible. It took me some time to figure out which way to turn the clear plastic to adjust the temperature, and the dial to control flow is lacking. It's either high or off. Clearly marking hot-cold or making them separate controls would have been preferable. Also it's old and horribly unattractive.

Reading: Chinese Room

The Chinese Room experiment is far more of a psychological theory than it is a computer science topic. Can a computer truly understand language? By extension, can a computer really understand anything? What is understanding? Searle argues vehemently that a computer can never truly understand anything, and to be perfectly frank, his writing makes him seem fanatic about his position and horribly indignant that others may disagree with it. While he makes a good point, he seems like a stubborn child shouting “NUH-UHHHH" when argued with. His support of his opinion is occasionally shaky, and his arguments are sometimes self-contradictory.

Personally, I agree that a computer, then and now, cannot truly understand anything; it is given 1's and 0's and spits out the expected response. In this case, a computer is little more than a parrot, repeating what it is told (this is, of course, not to say that a parrot does not have consciousness---I use "parrot" in the figure-of-speech sort of way). Technology for conscious computers may be developed in the future (of course, it has been the subject of a huge number of science fiction stories from Battlestar Galactica to the Terminator series), but until we can truly create a self-aware being, I think that no computer will be able to comprehend anything other than 1's and 0's. My opinion is based on the assumption that understanding requires consciousness, however, and that assumption is never explicitly stated in Searle's article--many of the replies to his theory seem to be based on fuzzy definitions of understanding.

One such reply is the "other minds" reply: it simply states that we cannot know how other minds understand the same things as ourselves. This makes perfect sense, but this paper makes it seem like Searle and the Yale responder are operating on entirely different definitions of understanding. Searle argues that he can, in fact, assume that other people understand things because they have cognitive states and that a computer does not. His writing makes it seem like he brushes off this idea quickly and without a second thought.

This all begs important questions, though: why is he so angry, and why does he care? Is he concerned that machines are rising and threatening to take over? Is he just looking for something to argue about? This paper is famous for good reason and poses a good question, but I feel like the question could have been asked and evaluated from both sides equally before a tirade was launched. Searle seems only like a man trying to throw a hissyfit instead of having an intelligent discussion.

Overall, I tend to agree with Searle's position, but his writing makes me want to disagree just to see (or read, I suppose) his reaction. I must add a disclaimer here: I don't know anything about Searle except for what I've read in this paper. He could be an extremely rational person, for all I know, who is mild-mannered and easy to get along with, so if I have offended anyone with my opinion of his writing, I do apologize.

Paper reading #6: Improving Command Selection with CommandMaps

Intro:

Title: Improving Command Selection with CommandMaps

Reference Information: CHI '12 Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Pages 257-266

Author bios:

Joey Scarr was a senior in Computer Science at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand. He has produced a number of miscellaneous but useful projects.

Andy Cockburn is a professor at the University of Canterbury; his interests are HCI and multimedia projects. According to his website, he is a bit of a thrillseeker and enjoys windsurfing and rock climbing.

Carl Gutwin is a professor in the department of computer science at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada. He is one of the faculty leaders of the Interaction Lab, specializing in HCI.

Andrea Bunt is an assistant professor in computer science at the University of Manitoba in Canada; she co-directs the HCI Lab there and has worked on projects including adaptive systems and interface personalization.

 

An example of CommandMap for Microsoft Office

Summary: Four different studies were conducted for one purpose: to show whether graphical menu interface is more effective than other interface types because of spatial memory. In the first study, experienced users of Microsoft Word 2007 (a ribbon interface) were asked to identify their frequently-used tasks; they were then asked to click on a blank ribbon where the task would be located and later asked to find the task on the real interface. This study showed that most of the users had fairly accurate spatial memory and were able to easily find the tasks. The second study involved familiarizing participants with a CommandMap interface (like a ribbon tiled across the screen that appears with a key press; see above illustration), then asking them to find tasks in the CommandMap interface, a ribbon interface, and a traditional menu interface. The CommandMap interface was found to reduce time taken to find tasks, frustration, and ease of use for experienced users. In the third study, the same tests were performed in the second study, but the participants were not familiar with any of the interfaces. In this case, ribbon and CommandMap interfaces were found to be faster to navigate than menu interfaces, but neither had a clear advantage. Because the first three studies were conducted on static screens (i.e. full-screen program windows), the fourth study observed how participants reacted to a scaling CommandMap and a constantly-sized popup CommandMap. The scaled CommandMap was observed at 1280 x 1024 resolution, 640 x 512 resolution, and at 320 x 256 resolution. All participants preferred the pop-up menu. Overall, experienced users preferred the CommandMap to ribbon or menu interfaces.

Related works:

2D vs 3D, Implications on Spatial Memory - Tavanti, Lind
An investigation of how spatial memory differs between 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional displays; spatial memory is crucial to the CommandMap study and the development of 3D displays will require additional interface research.

Spatial Memory in Hypertext Information Retrieval - Fajardo, Canas, Salmeron,  Abascal
Investigating the use of spatial memory in information retrieval; CommandMap may be used for information retrieval purposes.
 
The Influence of Grids on Spatial and Content Memory - Leifert
A study about how visual grid overlays can affect spatial memory in some interfaces; could prove to be useful in spatial interfaces.

Pad: An Alternative Approach to the Computer Interface - Perlin, Fox
A discussion of a new computer interface in which the whole interface is a giant shared workspace, where zooming and motion allow information access. In this, each piece of information has a physical place, much like CommandMap (though CommandMap is not this extreme).

Query, Analysis, and Visualization of Hierarchically Structured Data Using Polaris - Stolte, Tang, Hanrahan
A presentation of a visualization of a hierarchically organized structure; in this case, it deals with a warehouse, but this could be expanded to deal with menus and the like (as CommandMap does).

Finding Information on a Menu: Linking Menu Organization to the User's Goals - Mehlenbacher, Duffy, Palmer
This 1989 paper is an example of relatively early menu development. Interesting to see that this paper, once at the height of technology, is describing a technology that CommandMap may replace.

Complementary menus: Combining adaptable and adaptive approaches for menu interface - Park, Han
A study of adaptable and adaptive menus shows that menus based on user preferences and frequency of task selection are more effective; similar to CommandMap.

Learning and retention with a menu and a command line interface - Durham, Emurian
A study of how well participants remember how to interact properly with a command-line interface or a menu interface; any interface easily remembered is relevant.

User-process model approach to improve user interface usability - Ju, Gluck
A study of menus reorganized based on users' preferences.

Design and evaluation of freehand menu selection interfaces using tilt and pinch gestures - Ni, Bowman, North, McMahan
The development of a new menu-based interface using gestures is discussed; any alternative interfaces are relevant to CommandMap.

According to the relevant research found, this is a fairly novel interface alternative, but alternatives to menu interfaces are not unheard of.

Evaluation: In the first study, only a quantitative objective analysis was performed. The number of familiar tasks, the accuracy of clicking in the blank ribbon, and the number of clicks taken to get to the task in the ribbon interface were all gathered. For studies two and three, a quantitative objective analysis was performed of the speed at which tasks were selected and the error rate. Additionally, a quantitative subjective analysis was performed to determine interface preferences (including categories like mental demand, temporal demand, and frustration). For the fourth study, a quantitative objective analysis was performed on accuracy rates, and a qualitative subjective analysis was performed after participants were asked for their opinions.

Discussion: CommandMap is a good alternative to keyboard shortcuts; one of the reasons referenced for its development is the fact that few "expert" users adopt keyboard shortcuts, preferring to stick to mouse commands. I much prefer using the keyboard and would probably find the screen real estate required for this system frustrating; perhaps that is due to my status as a programmer. The evaluation was appropriate and complete--concrete numbers were needed to determine its actual effectiveness, and user opinions are vital for the success of this project. This seems to be a fairly novel project.