On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 09:06 +0200, Wim Woittiez wrote: > Regarding Joel's idea... I always disable small boxes in the corner. I > find it hard enough to stay focused in computing life as it is, I > definitely don't need more distractions. Likewise, when I decide to > read mail, I launch my mail program, then when I'm finished, I close > it again.
That's the thing about this box (or whatever shape it would end up taking). It would automatically disable itself without the user needing to do a thing except ignore it. Most users lack the motivation to figure out how to disable things in the first place, they just keep being annoyed by them. In your case, it'd most likely end up showing itself to you in the morning or not at all if you always do the flashcards before it has the chance to show up. That's the whole idea of this thing, that it adapts based on cues from the user that happen naturally and unconsciously. That's the way we adapt to each other (and ourselves) too. Another possibility for what it could look like is, for example, if you make it an applet in the taskbar, it could pulsate slowly enough that you'd have to be actively looking for distractions to spot it. > I spend half an hour every morning reviewing flash cards when my > energy level is high, so focusing is easiest. In that time, I review > some 100 cards and learn a couple of new ones. It sometimes takes a > little longer when I add new cards for example. I figure, since you > said you'd stopped adding material a long time ago, you'll probably be > done in much less time, so it will probably be far better to just do > them quickly in one go in the morning. I haven't actually just stopped adding material, I haven't reviewed it in 2 years... that is, through flashcards. My material was Japanese characters so I do naturally get some review by reading, which I do quite a bit. > In any case, I don't like the idea of an algorithm guessing my mood. > In my opinion, man-machine interaction should always be based on > clarity: the machine should have a button of which the man knows > exactly what it does. If one such action needs a second action in the > majority of cases, the second action should automatically happen by > default, rather than requiring a second button press, but it shouldn't > have some algorithm to guess whether or not it should happen. That > would make it unpredictable for the man, and therefore consume more > human attention than necessary. (I do realise that reality can be a > bit more complex than this at times, but this illustrates the > principle.) I'm going to throw a guess here and assume your dislike for computer guessing your mood is because you expect it to guess it mostly wrong. My own experiences indicate otherwise. I've used immsd (http://imms.luminal.org/) for years and it works beautifully. It makes for enough of a difference that I definitely wouldn't like having to stop using it. Computers have long since went past the point where they're simple enough that most people can understand them. Only a fraction of people are capable of understanding them to a significant degree. My grandmother had problems even understanding a simple cellphone. Let alone a modern smartphone. She could barely read a text message she received. Finding an older message or writing one was beyond her. The only reason to provide a button is if the human is better able to know when the action will be needed than the computer and even then only if the difference is actually significant enough to warrant the extra complexity. This will naturally depend a lot on the human in question. That's actually a point here. I want to make the computer more man-like but without the complexity of having it's own will. Unpredictability of the algorithm is not a problem. But if it guesses wrong more often than the user, then it is. Especially if the implications from a wrong guess are big. There are many people who think the computers do have their own stubborn will because they are unable to figure them out enough to get the settings suited for themselves. This would allow the computer to be more useful since it would be able to take on some of it's own management tasks. For the moment, it's the human who adapts to the computer, not the other way around. > Just my 2 cents' worth... Oh, and another idea! Why don't you add just > 2 or 3 new cards every day? That way, you're learning new stuff, so > your brain will be motivated again to launch it every morning. I find > the progress itself to be extremely rewarding. I can never wait to > have "unlearned cards" counter to 0, so I can add some new ones, then > when I do, I can't wait to have the counter to 0 again etc. I do appreciate the suggestion but I unfortunately don't get kicks from having memorized things. My brain actually tends to look at the huge number of unlearned cards and think "oh my god, it'll be ages until that's finished" and until then I only just feel bad about not being there yet. Best Regards, Joel -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mnemosyne-proj-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mnemosyne-proj-users?hl=en.
