%0 Journal Article %1 hoffman05 %A Hoffman, R. %A Woods, D. %D 2005 %J Intelligent Systems, IEEE see also IEEE Expert %K methodology hci complexity cognition %N 1 %P 76--79 %T Toward a Theory of Complex and Cognitive Systems %U http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1392678 %V 20 %X This essay considers the nature and status of the “principles” of human-centered computing that have been proposed in previous essays in this Department. The authors argue that the principles qualify as scientific laws. Furthermore, the principles relate in interesting and meaningful ways, as they should if they are to constitute a theory. The authors make a case for the need for a general theory of Complex and Cognitive Systems.

@article{hoffman05, abstract = {This essay considers the nature and status of the “principles” of human-centered computing that have been proposed in previous essays in this Department. The authors argue that the principles qualify as scientific laws. Furthermore, the principles relate in interesting and meaningful ways, as they should if they are to constitute a theory. The authors make a case for the need for a general theory of Complex and Cognitive Systems.}, added-at = {2006-09-09T19:26:51.000+0200}, author = {Hoffman, R. and Woods, D.}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2ed5d297800c43e2976350cb004c24c8e/neilernst}, citeulike-article-id = {139298}, comment = {- interesting principles for human-centered computing - Woods et al. main objection to CWA is likely that it enforces the primacy of the work environment over that of the human. They see it as rejecting the 'Aretha Franklin' principle of RESPECT. They position humans as equally able, and capable of any reasonable task. - I don't think CWA contradicts this: it just says, If you are designing a system, the *first* thing you ought to do is to consider the context, then how to support the human. Rather than, Here's a problem, and here's my human. Support human. This is the simplistic view of work. - I call this the 'letter writing' vs 'power plant operating' dichotomy. We need to keep in mind (as CWA book mentions) that there is a qualitative difference between work domains. - this will affect what has primacy: the human's goals for the system (which may be, make my life easier, don't bother me too much, allow me to monitor the plant conditions easily) and those of the work domain itself, which are more likely to be complex (keep plant from melt-down, generate energy efficiently) - also need to consider that a lot of research in SW area is based on idea of knowledge work predominantly, e.g., writing an essay, coding, searching for travel tickets. A lot of human work in, say, machine domains, is largely rules and skills based. It is important to describe the type of work being done. - essentially, the system at which you work has a big impact on what type of tool you will use. - perhaps the biggest weakness in CWA comes from its insistence on revolutionary design, which is rare in nearly all cases. Hoffman and Woods argue that context is ever-changing (the ant's beach is constantly resculpted), so a formative design for one problem is irrelevant for other problems. - good point about "Stretched Systems" - solving email overload will just allow people to do other things to excess, putting us back where we started. - problem with claiming this is a scientific theory is that it is almost impossible to test: one must build two systems, and see if the principles are violated.}, description = {sdasda}, interhash = {bba04715b48fe08024f2067b1e95de57}, intrahash = {ed5d297800c43e2976350cb004c24c8e}, journal = {Intelligent Systems, IEEE [see also IEEE Expert]}, keywords = {methodology hci complexity cognition}, number = 1, pages = {76--79}, priority = {0}, timestamp = {2006-09-09T19:26:51.000+0200}, title = {Toward a Theory of Complex and Cognitive Systems}, url = {http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1392678}, volume = 20, year = 2005 }