I'm not sure what was supposed to be plain common sense, the inclusion of
human factors scientists into the discussion of problem with the ballots or
the design of the ballots.
Those of us involved in human factors strive to make the use of products
common sense. Taking one of Gibson's concepts we (human factors scientists)
would strive for the design of a product that would afford it's use. There
is quite a bit of work involved in achieving that level of product design.
Unless the necessary usability analyses precede product design, it's only
with hindsight that the elimination of errors are plain common sense
Gary J. Klatsky, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oswego State University of NY http://www.oswego.edu/~klatsky
Oswego, NY 13126 Voice: (315) 312 3474
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Brandon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 10:24 AM
To: TIPS
Subject: RE: How I used the election for teaching
At 9:06 AM -0500 11/13/00, Michael Sylvester wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Nov 2000, Esther Yoder Strahan wrote:
>
>> Gary and Tipsters--
>>
>> I have been frustrated in watching the West Palm Beach ballot coverage to
>> note that (at least in all the coverage I've seen) no one consults any
>> human factors people!
>>
>> For some reason CNN and the other news outlets seem to think it
appropriate
>> to bring in only journalists and the occasional political scientist to
>> comment on the design of the ballot. I wonder whether they have been
>> approached by any human factors scientists offering to provide an
informed
>> opinion on the issues of usability/readibility/error rates, etc...
>>
>> Esther
>>
>
> It should be plain common sense.
Why?
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
