[1015] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
RE: Casual instructions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (BM.NLL%RLG.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu)
Wed Aug 19 09:21:30 1992
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 08:16:42 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
From: BM.NLL%RLG.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
At the risk of putting my head in a made-to-order noose, I want
to disagree with Janet Swan Hill and Kendell Simons. I believe
that "casual instruction" can be both appropriate and effective,
particularly in a computerized environment.
All contemporary hardware and software is subject to constant
mutation. Simons' description of keyboard variation is an
example of such mutation. Ultimately, attempts to make
instructions truly explicit are bound to fail. Even if they are
correct for one environment at one time, they will inevitably
become obsolete as hard and software evolves. In any case,
people move around even if your equipment and software are
allowed to stagnate. Perhaps someday this process of mutation
will slow down or cease, but there no sign that it will do so
soon.
Training that encourages people to experiment and be ready to
change their habits quickly will serve people better in the long
run than trying to supply them with directions for each step of
each potential operation they may need to use. "Casual
instruction" (notice that the term itself is perjorative) is
one way to encourage such openness. I know that some people are
uncomfortable with such training; they are precisely the people
who need to be encouraged to experiment. It's just a fact about
computer systems that people who thrive on partial information
and constant feedback have a major advantage over those who
prefer to know exactly what they're doing before they begin.
I admit, of couse, that like any other teaching style "casual
instruction" can be done well or done poorly.
I would also like to point out that teaching and learning
mathematics and similar disciplines is a poor analogy for
teaching and learning computer systems. Learning calculus is the
same as learning the steps of reasoning behind the solution of
problems in calculus and does not vary from location to location
or from year to year. Learning to use computer systems, however,
is not the same as learning sequences of keystrokes. The result
is what counts, not the steps taken to get the result and the
steps will vary considerably from site to site and from year to
year. The writer of the calculus textbook JSH refers to appears
to have been thoughtless or arrogant because he made unwarranted
assumptions about his readers, not because it is always better to
have instructions spell everything out.
----------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Spore | Phone: 212-998-6333
Head of Cataloging & Automated | Fax: 212-998-6587
Systems | spore@acf5.nyu.edu
New York University Law Library |
40 Washington Sq. So. |
New York, N.Y. 10012 |
----------------------------------------------------------
