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 127823
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

AnalystX Member since:

Of course Stanley was purpose built. That was part of my point. General computing won't need to exist for any purpose other than to provide us with information. That's why I gave LCARS as an example. Everything else will be purpose built, just like us humans are purpose driven. We don't need computers to actually be us, just do the things we don't want to do. Keep in mind that humans that are "jack-of-all-trades" are rarely experts at anything. I think people have pushed general computing too far in that direction. Computing does not need to become any more general.

Reply Parent Score: 1