Cognitive abilities predict performance in everyday computer tasks
sciencedirect.com
sciencedirect.com
> To sum up, cognitive abilities are at least as good a predictor as prior experience for an individual’s ability to complete everyday tasks on computers.
Seems to contradict this conclusion:
> Our results suggest that contemporary user interfaces are getting so complex that their design is starting to affect inclusivity.
The fact that practice competes with high cognition is a sign that it is close to the limits of how good it can be.
--
I know it is hard to compare, but is it possible to make a musical instrument that is more acessible "to everyone", or is there a limit on how acessible it can get before it stops being an instrument and becomes a radio?
In a similar note, the perfect usable computer can't end up being a TV, right? It has to be used for computer things.
--
It seems to me that making people experienced is the simplest way of achieving widespread computer literacy.
And yet.
From a few days ago: What if I just want a faster horse
Something that is at the limits of inclusiveness, in my mind, would only need practice for someone to be good at it, not cognition?
But that's raising the bar down, isn't it?
If you make something easier, smarter people will get more mileage out of it (either by achieving the same goals with less experience or achieving unexpected goals).
Therefore, the sweet spot lies where someone can practice it enough to perform as good as a "high cognition" person.
I truly don't believe in IQ though. I think it's bullshit and anyone could be smart. To me there's somethibg about _good practice_. Not all hours of experience are the same. The difference, from my perspective, is there.
Plenty of UIs are objectively deficient in their accessibility, especially to those with poor working memory or cognitive abilities. Many UIs require rote repetition of arcane rituals or inobvious language, exploration through a space of modes, actions, states which aren't immediately clear or discoverable. Some of this can be made up for through effort, but it's not always inherent complexity being reflected, much of it is accidental.
Isn't that what MIDI did for music?
The next best composer might not know a single instrument, but make great music every day.
The intention guides the result, not limited by the actions.
> The next best composer might not know a single instrument, but make great music every day.
MIDI doesn't contribute to that. We had musical notation before we had computers.
It's essentially a sampler, locked in a single chord progression. It can be used as "an instrument". It is very simple and intuitive to use.
If it had free chord choice, it would br harder and less intuitive. However, it would make the user think about what chord progressions really are. Closer to what an estabilished instrument that stood the test of time is.
Can you have both? A simple intuitive instrument that can play all that a "hard" instrument can, requiring no practice or cognition? (rethorical)
My comment deals on this kind of treshold. An instrument that both a "born talented musician" and "someone who tried very hard" can play in equal terms is a very good sweet spot in terms of inclusion and equality.
Do they, though? Anecdotally, they seem to be primarily focused on optimizing engagement metrics, secondarily on adding gratuitous padding, and tertiarily on making all the buttons flat and harder to distinguish from the background. Rant over.