Re: The nature of the beast

From: htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000

David desJardins:

>Before, when Henry said things like, "In addition to the fact that it
>is physically easier to read information on a printed page than it is
>on a screen, the pages can be spread out so that specific information
>is actually easier to get at than navigating through layers of windows on
>a computer," I thought he was just a bit naive.  Maybe someone without
>much experience with computers would not realize that, for example,
>using a search command to jump to a particular section of an electronic
>turn report can be a much faster and more convenient way of finding it
>than shuffling through pages.

Being a University graduate (in Computer & Information Science), having
founded an Internet Service Provider (which I continue to manage in
Adelaide, Australia), and spending an average of about 12 hours a day
online, I am quite aware of the capabilities of search tools, and have
GREPped more than my fair share over the years.  (This information is
provided so that you may stereotype future replies, not as an ego-stroking
exercise, nor as a point of contention.)

The FACT REMAINS that it is *physically* easier to read a laser-printed
sheet of paper than a computer screen (think in terms of eye-stress and
comprehension rate), and that simply glancing left *is* easier than using
a search tool (I did mention that "the pages can be spread out so that
specific information is actually easier to get at than navigating through
layers of windows on a computer").

Whether *you* are able to organise a 12-page report on a table to make
important information easy to access is a completely different matter, but
with a computer program, the user generally has no way to customise the
interface at all (and that slows down the rate at which information can be
accessed).

(I suppose you could argue that paper reports become unmanageable beyond a
certain size.  I'd agree with that, but I've never come across a report
that was too large to lay out on a table or pin up on a wall.)

>But this is even more silly.
...
>> I don't think anyone would disagree that phone calls are more
>> efficient than email which, in turn, is more efficient than snailmail
>> (IRC would lob between the phone and email).
...
>Obviously many people do find email more
>efficient than using the phone.  You don't even have to have any
>experience with computers to know that.  You just have to observe that
>many people do choose to use email, when they could be using the phone
>instead.  Is Henry's thesis that they are all choosing email rather than
>phone communication in order to waste their own time and make things
>harder on themselves?

No.  You seem to be mistaking "efficiency" with "conveniency".  Email may
be a more *convenient* method for a lot of players, but a phone
conversation is far more *efficient* (for people with no speech or hearing
impediments, that is).  And before the question is even asked, I define
efficiency (in this context) as the effective use of time - the ability to
communicate at the fastest possible rate.  People generally speak at
around 100 words per minute; people generally type at less than 35 words
per minute - it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out which is the
more efficient method of communication, to wit:

>> thus five minutes on the phone with an ally is not the same as
>> spending five minutes writing a letter to an ally (more being
>> accomplished, obviously, by the former than the latter).
>
>If talking on the phone is "obviously" so efficient, then why do I find
>it so annoying and inconvenient?

Because it *is* annoying and inconvenient!  :)  At least, it's annoying
and inconvenient if you're not the one doing the dialling - an incoming
phone call can be quite disruptive to workflow (not only does it take up
time, but it can make you lose your previous train of thought, and it can
also have an emotional effect which can throw you off for the rest of the
day).  You must admit, though, that if *you* want to actually sort
something out, then about the only thing that beats a phone call is a
face-to-face meeting.

>It seems to me that Henry just doesn't like email, doesn't like using
>email, and is trying to come up with a bunch of reasons why computers
>email is good.  Unfortunately, all of his arguments seem to start with
>the premise "email is no good".

Well, let's see:  Wrong, wrong, huh, and wrong.

For what it's worth, I think that email is the next best thing since
sliced bread - it's fantastic!  It's convenient, reliable, and fast.  I
was never much of a letter-writer, for the same reasons that Andrei gave
earlier, but pre-1991 I didn't have a choice.  Now email is my preferred
method of communication - I, like you, find the phone annoying and
inconvenient.

I don't think that we have a bone to pick over this issue.  I simply think
that you didn't interpret my writing in the literal sense in which I wrote
it.  A simple miscommunication - it happens.  Grab a cuppa, put your feet
up, take it easy.

Henry.

References

Re: The nature of the beast
David desJardins <desj@math.berkeley.edu>
Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
The nature of the beast
htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The nature of the beast
Carl Burke <cburke@mitre.org>
Wed, 17 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The nature of the beast
htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Re: The nature of the beast
David desJardins <desj@math.berkeley.edu>
Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
The nature of the beast
htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The nature of the beast
Carl Burke <cburke@mitre.org>
Wed, 17 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The nature of the beast
htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000