Did you know ... Search Documentation:
Pack logicmoo_nars -- ImportantDocs/jmc/office.md

CRITERIA FOR USEFULNESS OF

COMPUTERS IN OFFICES

John McCarthy

Computer Science Department

Stanford University

Stanford, CA 94305

jmc@cs.stanford.edu

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/

1999 Jul 8, 5:02 p.m.

Abstract

The thesis of this lecture will be that there is no difficulty in getting people

to use computers in offices provided the computer and its applications are

genuinely useful. However, the criteria for usefulness are often not what

one would imagine, and some further research is required before the real

computer revolution happens.

I became interested in office use of computers in 1957, and this was one

of the motivations for my research on time-sharing - the main one being use

in artificial intelligence research. The first time-sharing system at Stanford

was a PDP-1 in 1964. For that we provided no off-line program preparation

equipment, and when we specified a display system, we insisted on both upper

and lower case with a view to using the system for preparing documents as

well as other applications.

A. Office Computing at the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

The Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory received its PDP-6 com-

puter in 1966, and it was planned to use the computer for office applications

from the beginning. All displays and the printer permitted upper and lower

case and a reasonable set of mathematical symbols, and we began improving

on-line editors. The first PhD thesis written and printed on the computer

was in 1971.

Our progress in office use of the computer was mainly paced by hardware

acquisition. While we could print documents from the beginning, there was

no motivation to prepare them on-line as long as we were using uppercase-

only teletypes for terminals. When we acquired our first display system, on-

line preparation of documents began, but until we installed our 60-terminal

Datadisc display system in 1971, the terminals were in a terminal room.

Putting the terminals in offices, which included supplying the secretaries

with terminals, was a major step. Gradually more and more Laboratory

administrative files were kept on line, and the secretaries could help prepare

papers. However, since it also became easier for researchers to enter and

edit their own papers, there was less typing per secretary. People differ in

the extent to which they work through typists and secretaries, and an office

system should provide for these differences.

Getting on the ARPA net gave a big stimulus to message sending inside

the Lab as well as over the net. The E editor permitted more effective use

of the displays. The POX and PUB document compilers automated many

editorial aspects of document preparation. When Xerox gave us a Xerox

Graphics Printer, this made possible preparing multifont documents with

arbitrary character sets.

Many people work both in the Lab and at home, and their easy use

of office computing requires home terminals, of which we now have a fair

number.

Donald Knuth’s TEX and the associated acquisition of high quality print-

ing equipment have substantially increased the documentation use. Knuth’s

vigorous publicizing of TEX including the book has been at least as impor-

tant as the program itself. Even mathematicians are beginning to use our

computers for producing theses and papers. They have always been among

the slowest to make use of computer facilities. This is because mathematics

is mostly done at a high level of abstraction, and we are only beginning to

develop computer programs that communicate this abstractly.

Besides the main programs associated with office use, many auxiliary pro-

grams for looking up data in files and even computing have been developed.

B. Conclusions from Our Experience

  1. Up time of the computer and safety of its file system determine whether it will be accepted for office use.
  2. Secretaries and other clerical people can use computers even without much training. Their motivation to do so requires that they have ter-

    minals on their desks and that the computer be reasonably reliable.

    Some amateur human engineers imagined that they might have a prob-

    lem with a keyboard in which the top row of keys was displaced from

    standard. Like almost all of the researchers, they never noticed. For

    workload reasons, we have had to use many temporary secretaries from

    manpower agencies. This has proved unexpectedly easy.

    I saw one

    temporary typing at a terminal twenty minutes after her arrival under

    the supervision of a regular secretary working at another terminal in

    the same office.

  3. Display terminals are much better and cheaper than hard copy termi- nals. The latter are noisy, and waste paper gets spread around. Of

    course, there needs to be a good accessible printer, but many people

    print only daily.

  4. Having many display terminals, provided they have at least minimal facilities, is more important than having a few super terminals. We will

    shortly have a really good experimental test of this proposition, because

    the Computer Science Department now has perhaps 75 terminals in

    offices and about 15 Xerox Alto systems in terminal rooms.

    I am

    betting that people who have Datadiscs in their offices will use them

    rather than take their papers to a terminal room down the hall.

  5. Reducing the noise level is important. A big improvement comes from eliminating typewriters, and it will probably prove worthwhile to de-

    velop less noisy keyboards.

  6. If they have a proper interactive style, many programs can be used without formal documentation - whether a hard copy manual or full

    interactive documentation. If the program is written in a style familiar

    to our users and its general capabilities are known, most people will

    try to use it without reading the manual. For example, punctuation

    of the arguments of commands must be standard: Don’t require a

    comma in one place and a semicolon in another. ”?” should always

    get information about the options available at the present point in the

    interaction.

  7. Programs should interact at a single level as much as possible. Even an experienced user often gets lost in a hierarchy of modes and submodes.

    Menus are bad, because as soon as a user gains the slightest experience,

    he hates having the screen cluttered up with changing menus. The

    information provided by menus and question-and-answer formats can

    be provided by letting the user say ”?” whenever he needs to know

    what his options are. Worst of all are interactive programs that clear

    the input buffer before accepting a user’s command in a new situation.

    The even slightly experienced user will want to type ahead, often totally

    ignoring what is on the screen, in order to get the program into a desired

    state.

  8. Keeping up with new programs and improvements in programs has proved impossible so far. People use only a part of the facilities of

    our interactive programs. This isn’t a tragedy; everyone has his own

    appropriate balance of effort between learning about new features and

    using the old ones.

  9. Many jobs do not involve continuous use of the computer, and it is more important to meet the needs of the casual user than those of the

    beginner. A person will invest considerable effort in first learning how

    to use a computer, but if he has to learn all over again after a two-

    month layoff, he won’t put in the effort a second time. Computer use

    should not be like instrument flying - requiring lessons if you haven’t

    done it for six hours in the last ninety days.

    10. The utility of many proposed applications of computers is limited by

    the work required to put the information in the computer. The prize

    example is the proposal to use home computers to keep track of items

    in the pantry and warn the householder when to buy more. Even if

    the terminal were in the pantry, it would be too much trouble and

    people would forget. A bar code reader in the pantry might make it

    reasonable, but the geneticists may have to breed hens that lay eggs

    with bar codes.

    C. Some More Controversial Contentions

    I cannot claim that these contentions have been verified by experience,

    because I haven’t enough.

  10. Executives will use computer systems provided they are genuinely use- ful, but when they are not useful, the complaints will often be mislead-

    ing about the real reasons. An executive will always be a casual user.

    Therefore, the terminal must be unobtrusive and quiet; his secretary

    must have one too, and if he works at home, there must be a terminal

    at home too. In fact, the message use of a computer is most helpful

    out of normal working hours.

    I got out of bed last night, because I

    remembered a message I had been intending to send for a week, sent it

    and forgot the matter till I received the reply this morning.

    Usefulness for executives will depend on how many of the people with

    whom they must communicate also have terminals.

    Anyone who does much work at home should have a terminal at home.

  11. Idiot-proofing programs is often a bad idea. It is easy for the designer of an on-line system to get into a state of mind where he regards the

    user as an idiot who must be prevented from making all kinds of mis-

    takes. Indeed the books and papers on interactive programming take

    this attitude. In fact, the people who write about supervising program-

    mers take that attitude towards their charges. However, it has several

    disadvantages.

    First it must concentrate on the kinds of mistakes that can be detected

    and prevented by bureaucracy - whether it be the programmed bu-

    reaucracy of a field that allows only numeric input in a certain range

    or the administrative bureaucracy that requires a comment for every

    statement in a program. There are many situation in which the bureau-

    cracy spends its time preventing trivial errors, while major substantive

    errors are ignored, because the input embodying them is ”grammatical”

    according to the lights of the system.

    Second, idiot-proofing takes time, and it often happens that the idiot-

    proof programs are insufficiently debugged. There is nothing as annoy-

    ing as trying to get a program to accept input that it is rejecting for

    trivial reasons.

    Third, idiot-proof programs are usually extremely inflexible and are

    difficult to modify to take new data into account.

    Let me describe an experiment that unfortunately was never carried

    out. A certain university found its on-line registration system terribly

    late, full of bugs, and expensive of computer resources. The exper-

    iment was to have the clerks prepare the registration material using

    an ordinary editor - labelling the items in the text of the record. The

    files prepared by the clerks would then be processed by programs to

    get it in the desired form. Unlike on-line input-receiving programs, the

    processing program could be written while the input was taking place,

    and if bugs showed up, they could be corrected after the fact. Even

    last-minute changes in the information to be included could be accom-

    modated. The results of the data-entry could be printed and checked

    by supervisors or the supervisors could examine them on line. However,

    the university took the ”safer” path of buying another computer.

    Unfortunately, the task of writing a computer program for others to

    use seems to bring out the latent tyrant in many people.

    D. A Step Further Out

    There are many opportunities for expanding the usefulness of comput-

    ers in offices, but many of them require the development of standardized

    facilities.

  12. The Dialnet project. Many rival networks for interconnecting com- puters have been developed, but in my opinion, the possibilities of the

    ordinary dial telephone network have not yet been fully exploited. That

    network has the advantage that it already connects all the offices in the

    world.

    The Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory is developing the Dial-

    net system. This consists of a telephone dialer and suitable modems

    connected to our computer and software implementing the Dialnet pro-

    tocols. Anyone else in the world can similarly equip his computer and

    users of any computer equipped with Dialnet can communicate with

    users of any other.

    Sitting at my terminal I will be able to type ”MAIL MIKESMITH@202-

    666-6666 Mike are you free for lunch on Thursday?” Once I have done

    this, I can use my terminal for other purposes. My computer calls a

    computer at that number and tells it that it has a message for a user

    called MIKESMITH. He gets the message immediately if he is logged in

  • later otherwise. We can do this now for computers on the ARPAnet, but why go through all that politics, when the telephone system is

    available? Dialnet can also be used for transferring files between com-

    puters.

    The 1200 baud limitation of present Dialnet is important for some

    applications but not for messages and transfer of medium-size files like

    reports. If one specificies NIGHTMAIL the telephone cost for a 9000-

    byte message will be only a little more than the price of a stamp.

  1. National file-naming system. A major application of Dialnet or other inter-computer communication systems will be to transfer files from one

    computer to another. This is done now but it almost always involves

    specific technical arrangements between the managers of the computers.

    In order to transfer files freely (except as restricted by password fences),

    a national file-naming system is required.

  2. Describing other people’s files. Many programming languages contain features for describing data structures so that the compiler will generate

    them and compile programs that use them. However, no one such

    system will conquer the world and indeed, if progress is to continue, it

    is not even desirable that a single system be adopted. Therefore people

    will always want to refer to other people’s data structures.

    This can be made possible by a universal system for describing exist-

    ing files which can be developed using the techniques for describing

    grammars and data structures.

  3. A standardized style of interactive programming will help people use each other’s programs.

    /@steam.stanford.edu:/u/jmc/w80/office.tex: begun March 1980, latexed July 8, 1999 at 5:02 p.m.