Linked by David Adams on Wed 24th May 2006 04:08 UTC
Editorial It's conventional wisdom that computers need to be "easier to use." But do they? More reliable, yes. Easier to troubleshoot, yes. But now that so many people use computers so much, I think there's something to be said for making them less easy-to-use and less intuitive.
Thread beginning with comment 127712
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

bayesian filters and similar?

didnt microsoft work on that? and one of the results from that was clippy?

Edited 2006-05-25 13:14

Reply Parent Score: 1

AnalystX Member since:

Clippy is a poor example of intelligent design. It's biggest disadvantage is that Microsoft created it. There are two kinds of examples that exist on either end of the intuitive/intelligent scale.

On the more intuitive end, extending the desktop/folders/files metaphor to include tabbed file/web browsing. This has saved an untold amount of time for a lot of people. You couldn't pull off anything like the efficiency of tabbed browsing in a CLI.

On the more intelligent end, Stanley, Stanford's entry (and winner) into the 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge, is a great example of a computer making decisions that a human would normally have to do.

Hopefully, those in the computer industry will see the same vision for augmenting everything from lifestyles to mundane tasks. If done right, general computing will be more like using Star Trek's LCARS, and everything else will be specialized in much the same way lawyers, doctors, carpenters, and accountants are. Personally I'd like to see robot lawyers. Justice might be better served, and if it isn't, we can recycle them into something more useful.

Reply Parent Score: 1

hobgoblin Member since:

i think the real problem with clippy was that it seems they didnt try to detect what the users problem was and give a simple list of suggestings. they only tryed to detect if a person had a problem and then ask if he wanted help. so yes its a poor example.

however, im not sure that "stanley" is a good example either as that was a purpose-buildt device for a very specific kind of problem. a intelligent computer interface must be able to handle a increasing list of jobs, and understand what each user wants to do...

its the classical "do what i want you to do, not what i tell you to do".

Reply Parent Score: 1