Straightening Out Softening Up: Response to Carroll and Campbell
- 1 September 1986
- journal article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Human–Computer Interaction
- Vol. 2 (3) , 251-267
- https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci0203_4
Abstract
Carroll and Campbell have exercised themselves over a straw man not subscribed to by us. In the process, our position has not been accurately represented. In reply, we restate as clearly as we can the position for which we actually did and do argue. The underlying issue seems to concern the advantages of using technical psychological theories to identify underlying mechanisms in human-computer interaction. We argue that such theories are an important part of a science of human-computer interaction. We argue further that technical theories must be considered in the context of the uses to which they are put. The use of a theory helps determine what is a good approximation, the degree of formalization that is justified, and the appropriate commingling of qualitative and quantitative techniques. Technical theories encourage cumulative progress by abetting the classical scientific heuristic of divide and conquer.Keywords
This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- LisaLearningComputer, 1986
- Softening Up Hard Science: Reply to Newell and CardHuman–Computer Interaction, 1986
- User technology—from pointing to ponderingPublished by Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) ,1986
- The Prospects for Psychological Science in Human-Computer InteractionHuman–Computer Interaction, 1985
- A quantitative model of the learning and performance of text editing knowledgePublished by Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) ,1985
- Details of command-language keystrokesACM Transactions on Information Systems, 1983
- Learning text editor semantics by analogyPublished by Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) ,1983
- Evaluation of Mouse, Rate-Controlled Isometric Joystick, Step Keys, and Text Keys for Text Selection on a CRTErgonomics, 1978