> Really? Isn't this saying that we should never expect them to be able to
> learn a thing? To insist 'they' always know enough and all faults are
> ours? I'not sure.
This is a very interesting question. I'd love to read something
thoughtful about how an interface "teaches" you something—how you can
simultaneously be intuitive and easy, and be "moving someone along" to
something deeper. Interfaces do teach. Mostly they do it
unintentionally. What if we thought deeply about that teaching?
So, I'd love to read about it, and talk about it. I just feel that the
library world is *dreadfully* invested in the idea that bad interfaces
(widely construed) are "teaching" something. You hear the "teaching"
defense a lot in libraryland. Much of the time, it's a dodge--an
effort to excuse a bad interface. Sometimes what's being taught is
actually harmful. My favorite example of that was a discussion on
AUTOCAT about the "educative" effects of Dewey—that in grappling with
that embarrassing fossil you're learning something about the world. As
I see it, apart from learning that fiction and Buddhism are
unimportant, you're learning something deeply limiting--that knowledge
is a tree.
So, there's something to the idea of "teaching" interfaces, but I'm
wary of libraryland running to that idea. It'd be like asking AA to
investigate the positive health effects of red wine.
Tim
Received on Thu Mar 12 2009 - 11:34:49 EDT