TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Computer engineers,and technicians are not qualified to conceptualize or design systems that emulate individual human behavior.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing in engineering or computer programming education that prepares for accurate emulation of human cognition, behavior, human-computer interface, or human to human interface.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jun 29 2013: End of response to George QT:
    There are
    1) simple tasks that include a cue (telling the person to begin the process) and an existing procedure guiding the individual through the task with an existing standard for accomplishment;
    2) tasks where the cue is really determined by the player/operator, no formal cue exists. The player's initiative determines the cue and an existing standard for the accomplishmient;
    3) tasks requiring some analysis against an existing standard to determine a starting cue with an existing standard; 4) tasks where the starting cue has not been determined, no process exists, and but a standard for performance and accomplishment exists;
    5) there are tasks that have never presented themselves -- have no cue, where analysis or synthesis is the burden of the performer, no process exists and must be created by the player, and no standard has been established-- yet the performance is critical.
    Computers and programming, while able to speedily handle the simple tasks cannot do the more complex. And in complex challenges involving a dialog with a human or a team, dramatic improvement could be made if the points I am making are considered.
    I really love the opportunity to share what I know about human performance and am very gratedful for your time, courtesy, and patience. I am tired but looking foward to your response or that of anyone interested..
    *the term problem is meant in the mathematical or philosophical sense; that is, the problem is the difference between the desired and the existing condition.
    • Jul 2 2013: First of all, thank you again for you time, I really do appreciate it.

      In the case you describe the user (pilot) is presented with a physical user interface, so they interact with the computer though sticks, pedals, buttons, etc. In this case is not too hard to figure out ways to get information about the user's actions and reactions without interfering with their work flow and train of thought. For example, with the right sensors, you could know how hard they are pushing a stick, in which direction and how strong is their grip, with such data you can measure not only the user's performance but also how stressful is a particular situation, directly and in real time... so with the appropriate knowledge you can (hopefully) design an interface that enables both the machine and the user to learn from each-other, and cooperate in a progressively smoother way. I still have the unsolved puzzle of how to achieve that kind of user's data retrieval on a business software interface running on a personal computer, however your example gave me an idea, I need to do a lot of thinking first but maybe I found the key.

      Like I said I need to do some thinking before commenting any further on this particular subject, but I'd like to ask you a question: what is you opinion about gamification applied to business software? would it be a good idea to incorporate game elements to business software interfaces, in therms of user performance?

      You arguments are very enlightening, I do appreciate it very much you time. Hope to hear from you soon.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.