[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Re: "Do What I Mean" - a suggestion for improving
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg97172] Re: [mg97135] Re: "Do What I Mean" - a suggestion for improving
*From*: "David Park" <djmpark at comcast.net>
*Date*: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 02:38:14 -0500 (EST)
*References*: <goo7l7$shc$1@smc.vnet.net> <6957611.1236334564077.JavaMail.root@m02>
Doing science, engineering or mathematics is not the same as 'making
international phone calls' or 'driving a car' (say). There the task is
fairly routine and almost everybody is expected to be able to do it. With
engineering, every task is new. Mathematica is not like an HP or TI
calculator, or an older slide rule. It is, by its very nature far more
complex to learn because we are asking it to do far more. The model is more
like learning to be good at expository writing, or good at mathematics
itself, or learning to be a good poet. There is no royal road. It is not
just button-pushing.
Mathematica is both very powerful and evolving. In my opinion we are still
learning how to use it. I don't think anyone knows how to fully exploit it
yet - not even the people at WRI. So it's an adventure, and a rather
exciting one. Join in.
David Park
djmpark at comcast.net
http://home.comcast.net/~djmpark/
From: AES [mailto:siegman at stanford.edu]
In article <goo7l7$shc$1 at smc.vnet.net>,
Bill Rowe <readnews at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I do not think it is even a good
> idea to attempt to make Mathematica accessible to users with
> minimal computer/mathematics experience/knowledge assuming this
> is even possible.
I guess we'll just have to disagree -- vehemently! -- on this one (and
also with great sadness on my part, if this should represent Wolfram's
anything like Wolfram's actual views or objectives).
By sheer coincidence, a few minutes after seeing the above post I read
the following post in another newsgroup (it's a big long, but just skim
down to the end):
============================================
POST FROM COMP.DCOM.TELECOM, FEB 2009:
This thread reminded me of one of my favorite
published papers (because of its sheer readability) and I could not
resist bringing it to the attention of others, old and dated though it
may be. Scrounge through the stacks of your local engineering
library:
Test yourself: how much do you know about international
communications? [International numbering systems]
Robrock, A. (Italtel, Milan)
IEEE Communications Magazine, December 1989
Volume: 27, Issue: 12
Abstract
We like to think of international telephone communications as
`transparent', the successful outcome of 100 years of technical
progress and standards setting, but the author shows us that it is
not. The user still has to be something of an expert to understand how
to make international calls, and there are chaotically differing
numbering systems for telephony, telex, and electronic mail. We should
be reminded that usability of services, not just their usefulness, is
a critical component of communications. Simplicity, consistency, and
rationality of service features and the `human interface' that allows
users to invoke them should be a high priority for communications
engineers as they work toward the integrated services networks of the
future
============================================
Besides the "chaotically differing" phraseology, it's the final two
sentences that catch my eye. Should Mathematica interface designers
maybe be reminded that
"it's the _usability_ of software, not just its _usefulness_,
that's a critical component of software interface design"
and even better
"Simplicity, consistency, and rationality of software features
** and the `human interface' that allows users to invoke them **
should be a high priority for software designers as they work toward
the integrated services networks -- sorry, integrated software
packages -- of the future."
Interesting -- "_integrated_ software packages?" -- don't I recall that
that's one of the big selling points for Mathematica? (although one that
I personally believe can really only be effectively achieved -- for
software that is, not necessarily for networks -- using a much more
modular approach.
> There are a great many things in mathematics that work in
> specialized cases. For example, a user with little experience in
> mathematics likely would expect Sqrt[x^2] to simplify to x. But
> that transformation is only valid when x is real and positive.
> If Mathematica were to automatically do this simplification (or
> many others of a similar nature) it would not be an adequate
> tool for me or many other users since it would be creating
> erroneous output. Worse, even for those users where this
> happened to be the correct output, the issue gets hidden and
> they would learn to trust Mathematica only to lose trust when
> things were more complex.
>
> The point is mathematics is complex. A tool designed to
> implement mathematics can hardly be less complex. Attempts to
> reduce the complexity invariably mean some aspects (typically
> special cases) of the mathematics are being ignored or hidden.
> Ignoring or hiding such special cases limits the usefulness of
Mathematica.
Don't really disagree on the facts here -- just the operational
conclusions:
1) Are you really saying that the whole series of superb hp calculators
out of which I got so many useful scientific and engineering results in
earlier years -- and which, incidentally and painlessly, also gave me at
least an introduction to the concepts of Reverse Polish notation and
stacks as an aside -- should not have had a "Sqrt[x]" key?
[And incidentally: Would you not like to see Mathematica be as widely
used, and useful, as were those superb tools?]
2) I'm an engineer and physicist; other potential Mathematica users
might be from innumerable other practical fields (econ, stat, business,
etc etc). We know some math; varying amounts for different fields and
levels within fields. We know there are complexities in math that we
may not understand. But we also have the protection that when we
calculate results using some, we can (and do!) look at them and apply
"physically reasonable" criteria (or "realistic results" in other
fields) as part of our criteria. We don't denigrate rigor, or fail to
take care about the possibility of unanticipated special cases. But we
have _other_ tools that mathematicians don't have, to help us cope with
the possibility of those.
Prev by Date:
**Re: Mathematica 7.0.1.0 and some General Comments**
Next by Date:
**Re: list/sequence problem: a 'keep' list to a list of**
Previous by thread:
**Re: "Do What I Mean" - a suggestion for improving**
Next by thread:
**Design choice for Printout Screen Environment**
| |