Hacker News Reader

Comment by alganet | Hacker News Reader

This part:

> 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.

View on HN

Plenty of instruments are more accessible to noobs than others. Some instruments require incredibly precise dexterity, ability to perceive pitch, and knowledge of accidental complexity inherited from musical history, while others attempt to avoid this and some of those succeed to differing degrees.

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.

I would say that any serious student of interface design would do well to survey many of the popular 2D and 3D CAD packages just so they can experience exactly the kind of issues you're talking about.

I think you may have missed the point of the original comment - presumably those archaic instruments and interfaces would show a much higher value of experience over cognitive ability. The fact that this isn’t the case for computer tasks overall suggests that interfaces on average are pretty good (or there is some other factor they failed to include - maybe they are all similarly bad which means everyone comes in with more than zero experience, etc.). Full disclosure I didn’t read the article.

> is it possible to make a musical instrument that is more acessible "to everyone"

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.

Look for a Flash game called Punk-o-Matic. You can make songs with it, lots of different songs.

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.

> Isn't that what MIDI did for music?

> 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.

Thanks to MIDI, a boor like me can easily hear the same tones played by different instruments, something otherwise inaccessible to me. (Granted, MIDI is insufficient. Other software is required too.)

> The fact that practice competes with high cognition is a sign that it is close to the limits of how good it can be.

Something that is at the limits of inclusiveness, in my mind, would only need practice for someone to be good at it, not cognition?

If you really want total inclusiveness, you should make unintuitive UIs that take the edge off people who have high cognition, making it all exclusively about practice. Force the user to put hours in, no cheating with cognitive fancy symbols. Difficult for everyone.

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.

Many music instruments are a lot like vim/emacs. You could make it simpler, but flexibility is the selling point.

> the perfect usable computer can't end up being a TV, right?

And yet.

From a few days ago: What if I just want a faster horse

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43652723

The authors of the paper want to understand how to make inclusive computer interfaces. I am trying to remain in that scope.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com