|
1. what did you find (articulate the answers in your own words) 1.1. interesting about the article? I found the analogies to other technology domains interesting, bot the analogy to sinks and water delivery systems, and the analogies to other multipurpose/general purpose appliances. When a computer becomes "just another appliance" in the home/workplace, it's much easier to change how we think about it, and thus, change our conception of how it should be designed, and how we should interact with it. 1.2. not interesting about the article? While I thought the author made a very compelling case as to why things are currently "broken" in the field of HCI, I didn't feel he made a very compelling case for which direction the field should take, or where to go from here. 2. what do you consider the main message of the article? I thought the main message of the article was that computer design in the past 20 years has largely failed, or was at least stagnant. Instead of focusing on the same old monitor/keyboard/mouse paradigm, we need to focus on developing customized, specialized applications of computer technologies, which integrate well with our lives "in front of the glass", as well as our other devices. 3. Please comment on the following claim: “Despite the increasing reliance on technology in our society, in my view, the key to designing a different future is to focus less on technology and engineering, and far more on the humanities and the design arts.” 3.1. agree / disagree? I both agree and disagree. We face a pretty grim future as a planet, currently. We face a future threatened by increasing global warming, exploding human population, an out of control aids outbreak, not to mention general environmental collapse. My firm belief is that the only way out of many of these problems is through technology. We simply have gone too far to go back to former means and methods. However, in order to allow technology to be properly implemented, to actually solve these problems, and not simply feed more money in to the coffers of wealthy corporations, we need to focus on things like politicis, sociology, and other areas within the "humanities". However, I believe the author meant "future" in a different, perrhaps more trivial sense - how will our interaction with our technology devices change? And in this sense, I think the statement is quite accurate. 3.2. which are the personal consequences which you draw from this statement? I don't know that I draw any immediate personal consequences from this statement. 3.3. are the educational programs you are involved addressing this claim? No, not at all. From what I understand, taking a design course at CU as a CS student is nearly impossible. 4. Please comment on the following claim: “Given the much discussed constraints on human ability, how can we expect an individual to maintain the requisite specialist knowledge in their technological discipline, while at the same time have the needed competence in industrial design, sociology, anthropology, psychology, etc., which this essay implies are required to do one’s job?” 4.1. agree / disagree? I agree. 4.2. which are the personal consequences which you draw from this statement? The implications, personally, is that I need to continue cultivating myself as a well rounded individual, with experience and knowledge in many areas, not just technical ones. 4.3. are the educational programs you are involved addressing this claim? No, I think the CU CS education does an atrociously poor job at cultivating well roundedness, particularly in the context of technical matters. Any bit of other fields students do pick up, are definitely left at the door when it comes to the CS education.
|
