paper
Buxton, W. (2001) "Less is More (More or Less)." In P. J. Denning
(Ed.), The Invisible Future — the seamless integration of technology in
everyday life, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 145-179. available at: http://billbuxton.com/LessIsMore.html
Briefly discuss the following issues:
1. what did you find (articulate
the answers in your own words)
1.1. interesting about the article?
I thought the most
interesting aspect of this article was when he was talking about how successful
design is transparent to the user. He mentioned it early on in the article,
but it really hit home when he was talking about the relationship between e-commerce
and the bar code reader in the supermarkets. I think this is a really interesting
point to consider when designing a system. Because, as he says, human capability
is a constant over time, having transparent design lets more people use the
system, and hence make it more successful.
1.2. not interesting about the article?
I really enjoyed
this article, and thought it was the most interesting we have read so far this
year. Thus, I found nothing not interesting about it.
2. what do you consider the main
message of the article?
The main message
of this article is that technology is a crucial component of the future, but
that we need to rethink how to design for the future since today's designs are
not sufficient. The purpose of the article is to help us make progress towards
making that change in our educational institutions and industry.
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 agree with this
statement. I think his point is that a society is truly defined by its arts
and humanities, and that technology is more of a tool. Thus, in order for us
to design a different future, we need to increase our focus in these areas that
define us.
3.2. which are the personal consequences
which you draw from this statement?
Personally, I think
this statement emphasizes my view of what I wanted to learn from school. The
computer science program really emphasizes engineering, but I wanted a fuller,
more eclectic background by taking the TAM certificate program. It is always
important to have knowledge of art and humanities and when you are designing
for humans.
3.3. are the educational programs
you are involved addressing this claim?
It seems like a program
like ATLAS and TAM are doing their best to, but more progress can still be made.
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 that this
hinders the human capacity argument, but I think the point is that not every
one needs to have all the knowledge in the world to create a successful future,
they simply need to collaborate in their symmetry of ignorance.
4.2. which are the personal consequences
which you draw from this statement?
I think this statement
also emphasizes the need for a more robust curriculum, not necessarily forcing
every one to master all disciplines, but at least for every one to have an appreciation
for them. That is how I have viewed my college curriculum.
4.3. are the educational programs
you are involved addressing this claim?
A class like this
addresses this claim well. We don't simply have all computer science majors,
but people with different backgrounds and interests. Having a diverse group
of people on a project helps the design become more useful.
5. Do you feel that the “Design,
Learning, and Collaboration” course addresses these two claims?
Yes, I do. The above
claims support the need for collaboration in learning and system design.