3 ms·

Cognitive abilities predict performance in everyday computer tasks

32 points by pseudolus 2y ago

allears 2y ago
Smarter people are better at using computers. Doh! But wait -- pretty much everybody needs to use a computer. What do? Make all computers dumber? Thus was born the mysterious, noble and arcane art of UI design.
- bqmjjx0kac 2y ago
  > User interface designers aim to reduce cognitive load, improve ease of use, and guarantee access to all (Johnson, 2020). 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.
- sidewndr46 2y ago
  The Handicapper general shall be responsible for enforcing uniform usability across all applications
- lenkite 2y ago
  My dad prefers 1990s style simple terminals with a user manual compared to modern web UI's where he always gets lost and inevitably gets scammed.
  - ape4 2y ago
    Remember when all hyperlinks were underlined. But it was decided that wasn't pretty enough.
alganet 2y ago
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.
- Swizec 2y ago
  > 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43652723
  - alganet 2y ago
    The authors of the paper want to understand how to make inclusive computer interfaces. I am trying to remain in that scope.
- tangjurine 2y ago
  > 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?
  - alganet 2y ago
    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.
- lotyrin 2y ago
  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.
0asa 2y ago
That's a nice scientific proof for: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/PEBCAK https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/PEBCAK

32 points by pseudolus 2y ago

Smarter people are better at using computers. Doh! But wait -- pretty much everybody needs to use a computer. What do? Make all computers dumber? Thus was born the mysterious, noble and arcane art of UI design.

bqmjjx0kac 2y ago
> User interface designers aim to reduce cognitive load, improve ease of use, and guarantee access to all (Johnson, 2020). 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.
sidewndr46 2y ago
The Handicapper general shall be responsible for enforcing uniform usability across all applications
lenkite 2y ago
My dad prefers 1990s style simple terminals with a user manual compared to modern web UI's where he always gets lost and inevitably gets scammed.
- ape4 2y ago
  Remember when all hyperlinks were underlined. But it was decided that wasn't pretty enough.

alganet 2y ago

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.

Swizec 2y ago
> 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43652723
- alganet 2y ago
  The authors of the paper want to understand how to make inclusive computer interfaces. I am trying to remain in that scope.
tangjurine 2y ago
> 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?
- alganet 2y ago
  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.
lotyrin 2y ago
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.

0asa 2y ago

That's a nice scientific proof for: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/PEBCAK https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/PEBCAK