RE: Can software have human attributes?

["Dan Hall" <dhall -at- san-carlos -dot- rms -dot- slb -dot- com>]

Hi Bruce,

Actually, I can think of several reasons to avoid anthropomorphisms in most
cases.

The main reason I follow this "rule" is that it helps keep things clear.
Saying that a program (or device) is "sitting and waiting" isn't accurate,
because that's not actually what is happening. It's fuzzy-headedness
(IMNSHO) and should be avoided.

The program is polling (input devices, network connection, whatever) or
counting to determine when to execute the next command. It is also quite
probably performing other tasks in the background while "waiting" for input.
When a program actually stops doing these things (polling, counting,
calculating), you get a "stopped responding" error, or the BSOD.

I wouldn't be opposed to saying that a program "waits until there is a
connection open." But I feel it is clearer to say that it "checks the
network to determine if there is a connection open. Once a connection is
available, the program ..."

If I were driving a 1976 Suburban up a steep hill, I could tell a passenger
that it "doesn't want to go up the hill." But that doesn't provide an
accurate picture of what is happening. It would be clearer to say that the
car "loses  momentum" or "doesn't have enough torque" or something similar,
which gives a more accurate description of what is happening. I like the
clarity offered by a concise description of actual processes. I'm not
opposed to an analogy (such as anthropomorphism) here and there, but
analogies only go so far.

I think my main issue with this particular phrase (sitting and waiting) is
that it has a certain mental image tied to it. If you wanted to say a
program is sitting on your hard drive, or that a different one "waits for
authorization" I'd probably be ok, because those are fairly clear.

Just my thoughts,


Dan

Dan Hall
Sr. Technical Writer
SchlumbergerSema GTSRN

All the opinions, errors, sarcasm, and wit (if any) expressed in this
e-mail are solely mine.  SchlumbergerSema takes neither credit nor blame




Actually, I was thinking of grammatical and communication reasons.

However, I would question the validity of this conclusion, even before
reading more about it.

Judging from the copyright, this conclusion is based on research done
nine to eleven years ago. I wasn't a tech writer back then, but, judging
by how the knowledge of casual users has developed in the six or seven
years that I have been in the field, I seriously doubt that this is a
serious consideration any more. Computers have become such an accepted
part of people's everyday lives that very few are likely to have an
exaggerated sense of their capacity.

Moreover, when something does go wrong, inexperienced users are far more
likely to blame themselves than the computer - any usability testing
will tell you that.

Possibly, these findings would still hold for someone who had never used
a computer in their lives, but that's an increasingly small segment of a
writer's audience these days.
--
Bruce Byfield 604.421.7177 bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

*** Deva(tm) Tools for Dreamweaver and Deva(tm) Search ***
Build Contents, Indexes, and Search for Web Sites and Help Systems
Available now at http://www.devahelp.com or info -at- devahelp -dot- com

Learn about tools and technologies for user assistance developers at
The Help Technology Conference, August 21-24 in Boston, MA
Details and online registration at http://www.SolutionsEvents.com


---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit 
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.