Content uploaded by Linda C. Smith
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Linda C. Smith on Oct 14, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
LINDA C. SMITH
Associate Professor
Graduate School of Library and Information Science
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
User Friendly Future: Applications of
New Information Technology
What Is User Friendly?
This paper considers the clinic theme, "What Is User Friendly?" from a
scientific and technical perspective. As Burch has observed in the introduc-
tion to abibliography on computer ergonomics and user friendly design,
the term user friendly is an anomaly as atechnical term: "Most words
borrowed from science enter the popular language stream long after their
associated discoveries have become history. The term 'user friendly' is an
exception to this rule; it became popular long before ascientific basis for
'user friendliness' had even been looked for." 1The current emphasis on
user friendliness is both market- and technology-driven. There is an inter-
est in making computers more useful tools for people who are not compu-
ter specialists, thus expanding the potential user population; and there are
new technological components that may be employed to make systems
easier to use.
Definitions proposed for user friendly/friendliness range from brief
dictionary definitions (e.g., "a system with which relatively untrained
users can interact easily")2to lists of criteria (e.g., criteria for user friendli-
ness proposed by Trenner and Buxton). Although areview of these
definitions and criteria is one means of providing acontext within which
to view new technological developments, this paper instead begins with a
historical perspective, describing selected proposals for user friendly sys-
tems made over the past forty years.
Technology Forecasting: Techno-poetic Fantasies
In an essay introducing the technology section of The New Encyclo-
paedia Britannica Propaedia, Lord Ritchie-Calder remarks that: "From
108
USER FRIENDLY FUTURE 109
earliest time and beginning with the simplest contrivances, every discovery
and invention has depended on the fact that the human being is not only a
perceptual but also aconceptual creature capable of observing, memoriz-
ing, and juxtaposing images. He can make amental design, atechno-
poetic fantasy, even when the means of actually producing it are not
available." 4In the domain of information system design, there have been a
number of such techno-poetic fantasies, designs for user friendly systems
not realizable with the technology available at the time they were pro-
posed. Rheingold has recently surveyed several of these proposals and the
people behind them. Those described briefly in the following paragraphs
originated with Bush, Licklider, Engelbart, Nelson, and Kay: memex,
procognitive systems, the augmented knowledge workshop, hypertext,
and dynabook.
Vannevar Bush's article, "As We May Think," in which he proposed
memex and other devices, has frequently been cited in the library and
information science literature since it first appeared in Atlantic Monthly in
July 1945.6Less well known is the condensed and illustrated version which
appeared in Life 10 September 1945, including illustrations of future
information technology such as memex. Memex, as envisioned by Bush, is
amechanized private file and library. It is "a device in which an individual
stores all his books, records, and communications, and which is mechan-
ized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility. It is an
enlarged intimate supplement to his memory."8Bush emphasized the
value of organizing the contents using associative indexing, "whereby any
item may be caused at will to select immediately and automatically
another. This is the essential feature of the memex. The process of tying
two items together is the important thing."
In 1967 Bush had an opportunity to assess how much progress had
been made toward the construction of memex.10 He observed that: "Great
progress. ..has been made in the last twenty years on all the elements
necessary. Storage has been reduced in size, access has become more rapid.
Transistors, video tape, television, high-speed electric circuits, have revo-
lutionized the conditions under which we approach the problem." How-
ever, Bush was not optimistic that apersonal machine would be affordable
in ashort time. He did not foresee the rapid progress in integrated circuit
technology which led to personal computers in the 1970s.
In 1965 J.C.R. LickliderpublishedLibrariesof the Future in which he
described the likely characteristics of future computer-based information
systems. 12 He coined the term procognitive systems to differentiate them
from libraries, since the intent was that such systems "will extend farther
into the process of generating, organizing, and using knowledge" through
interaction among men, computers, and the body of knowledge.1Criteria
to be met by procognitive systems include: converse or negotiate with the
110 LINDA SMITH
user while he formulates his requests and while responding to them; adjust
itself to the level of sophistication of the individual user, providing terse
streamlined modes for experienced users working in their fields of expert-
ness, and functioning as ateaching machine to guide and improve the
efforts of neophytes; provide the flexibility, legibility, and convenience of
the printed page at input and output and, at the same time, the dynamic
quality and immediate responsiveness of the oscilloscope screen and light
14
pen. In 1982 Licklider had an opportunity to reflect on developments since
1965. lAlthough he noted considerable advances in the technological
infrastructure, such as increased storage capacity and the availability of
networks for digital transmission of information, he remarked that "the
practically important application of information technology by libraries
has not been, the past eighteen years, on any direct path to the procognitive
system Iwas trying to describe in Libraries of the Future." 16 Nevertheless,
he concludes by suggesting that, by the year 2000, librarians will have two
important roles: (1) contributing to the work of the online intellectual
community involved in generating and using the body of knowledge, and
(2) organizing and maintaining the body of knowledge which will exist in
electronic form.
In 1963 aseries entitled "Vistas in Information Handling" began with
avolume devoted to The Augmentation of Man's Intellect by Machine. 17
The lead paper in that volume, prepared by Douglas C. Engelbart, present-
ed aconceptual framework for the augmentation of man's intellect. 18 At
the recent Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Conference on
the History of Personal Workstations, Engelbart reviewed research con-
ducted in the intervening years toward realizing the "augmented knowl-
edge workshop" the place in which aperson finds the data and tools with
which he does his knowledge work, and through which he collaborates
with similarly equipped workers. 19 Engelbart feels that human knowledge
work capability can be enhanced through properly harnessing this new
technology. Although many of the technologies, both hardware and soft-
ware, originally developed by Engelbart's group have now made their way
into commercial products, he concluded his conference presentation on a
somewhat pessimistic note: "I still don't see clear perceptions about what
we humans can gain in new capabilities, or about how this may come
about. There are constant, echoing statements about how fast and smart
the computers are going to be, but not about how the enhanced computer
capabilities will be harnessed into the daily thinking and working life of
our creative knowledge workers."
At acolloquium on information retrieval held in 1966, Theodor H.
Nelson argued that access to information may not be best accomplished
either by indexing techniques (document retrieval) or queriable informa-
USER FRIENDLY FUTURE 111
21
tion networks (content retrieval). As an alternative, he suggested that
digital text storage and display make possible the creation of hypertext or
nonlinear text systems. Hypertext is the combination of natural language
text with the computer's capacities for interactive, branching, or dynamic
display; it "may differ from ordinary text in its sequencing (it may branch
into trees and networks), its organization (it may have multiple levels of
summary and detail), its mode of presentation (it may contain moving or
manipulable illustrations, moving or flashing typography), and so on."22
Nelson has been pursuing development of the technology required to
support this concept, as reported in his book Literary Machines.23
The final techno-poetic fantasy noted here is the dynabook, proposed
by researchers at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center.24 The dynabook
would be "a personal dynamic medium the size of anotebook. ..which
could be owned by everyone and could have the power to handle virtually
all of its owner's information-related needs." Alan Kay and Adele Gold-
26
berg describe what such adevice would be:
Imagine having your own self-contained knowledge manipulator in a
portable package the size and shape of an ordinary notebook. Suppose it
had enough power to outrace your senses of sight and hearing, enough
capacity to store for later retrieval thousands of page-equivalents of
reference materials, poems, letters, recipes, records, drawings, anima-
tions, musical scores, waveforms, dynamic simulations, and anything
else you would like to remember and change.
Although none of these authors used the term user friendly in charac-
terizing the products of their imagination which are now at least partially
realizable with available technology, atechnologically based definition of
the concept user friendly should include such visions of the future. In each
case ease of interaction was taken as agiven; instead the focus was on means
of creating, organizing, searching, and using the contents of the knowl-
edge base.
Technology Transfer: Information Technology
Before turning to aconsideration of the technological components
which will form the basis of user friendly systems in the future, it is
appropriate to note the plethora of periodicals which have emerged in an
effort to speed the transfer of technology into the library context. Titles
include Information Technology and Libraries, Program: News of Com-
puters in Libraries, Small Computers in Libraries, Microcomputers in
Information Management, Library Software Review, The Electronic
Library, Electronic Publishing Review, Online, Online Review, Database,
Library Hi Tech, Library Hi Tech News, Library Technology Reports,
Information Retrieval and Library Automation, Advanced Technology/
772 LINDA SMITH
Libraries, and Information Today. Periodicals such as Library Journal
and Wilson Library Bulletin also now have regular columns devoted to
library uses of technology. Although sources in the computer science and
engineering literature must be consulted to follow current research in
information technology, possibilities for application are documented in a
reasonably timely manner in the periodicals published for alibrary and
information science audience. Given the rapidity with which new develop-
ments occur, the next section simply highlights some of the technological
components currently available for design and construction of more user
friendly systems.
Technological Components: Hardware and Software
Developments in hardware contribute to user friendliness by making
many alternatives first feasible and then economical. Because users of most
systems can be expected to be a heterogeneous group, choices in hardware
allow alternative modes of access to be implemented for agiven system. For
example, microcomputers can be substituted for dumb terminals now that
information processing technology has become relatively inexpensive.
This enables the system to present alternative interfaces, such as one that is
menu-driven rather than command-driven. Local processing also offers
the possibility of implementing gateways to simplify access to multiple
systems, masking differences which users may find hard to remember.
Telecommunications contributes to ease of interaction through the
transmission speed which can be supported. New types of links using fiber
optics can support higher speed and larger bandwidth so that more data
can be transmitted at afaster rate. In addition there are now possibilities for
integrating voice, text, image, and data communications.
New forms of storage media make possible local, self-contained infor-
mation systems as an alternative to interactive access of remote databases.
In particular the optical disks, such as CD-ROMs, offer large capacity
storage for digital data as well as visual images. Because cost to use such
systems is no longer afunction of connect time to aremote computer, new
types of interaction which would be too costly in systems charging for use
by the minute are possible.
Input/output devices have the most direct impact on perceived user
friendliness. Input is no longer confined to the QWERTYkeyboard which
anyone but the touch typist may find cumbersome to use. Touching (using
touch screens) and pointing (using devices such as the mouse) can be used
to indicate choices in menu-based systems. Output can use printers, plot-
ters, and display screens with possibilities for different fonts, colors, win-
dows, and graphics. Although not yet as common, limited voice input and
USER FRIENDLY FUTURE 113
speech output allow the use of sound rather than tactile and visual means
of recording and reporting.
Software is of course required to make all these hardware components
operate. In judging user friendliness, one is concerned with what Shackel
has termed the "cognitive and software interface."27 Components include
languages (e.g., use of command languages v. natural language), informa-
tion organization, display format and layout, dialogue structure and
design, error message design, and advanced interfaces (e.g., intelligent
systems adaptive to the user). Tools are beginning to be available with
which to design and build many of these components as identified, for
example, in Bundy's Catalogue of Artificial Intelligence Tools.
Given this wide range of technological components, the challenge is
to combine elements to create more user friendly systems. As Smith notes,
there are significant differences between designing hardware and software
for the user interface.29 Formal standards may be applicable to hardware
design, but flexible design guidelines rather than standards are applicable
to software design. For example, Rubinstein and Hersh present awell-
developed set of guidelines for human-oriented design.30 In general, more
guideline information is available relating to the physical interface than to
the cognitive interface.
Technological Integration: Personal Workstations
Development of personal workstations represents the computing
environment which will form the basis for user friendly systems in the
future. The transition has been characterized by Perlis and White:
"Twenty five years ago computing was stationary, ponderous and central-
ized. Its dominant role was to serve the critical needs and purposes of
organizations and the sciences. Today matters are very different. Computa-
tion is personal, ubiquitous and expansive. Power is being supplied at and
to the fingertips of the individual." The workstation concept is sustained
by four technologies: dedicated microprocessors, local area networks, local
databases, and gateways to mainframes.33 Various input/output devices
are provided, depending on the tasks which the workstation is designed to
support. The workstation is used to carry out both generic activities (e.g.,
calculation, word processing, mail) and profession-related activities (e.g.,
scientific or engineering analyses) with appropriate software support.
These computing and communication systems are already appearing
in organizations of which libraries are apart, such as universities. At
Carnegie-Mellon University, for example, asystem named ANDREW is
being developed with personal computers, raster graphics, high band-
width communications, and time-sharing file systems as components. 4
The designers anticipate that ANDREWwill affect university education in
114 LINDA SMITH
four main areas: computer-assisted instruction, creation and use of new
tools, communication, and information access. With respect to informa-
tion access, the designers comment that "a mark of tomorrow's profes-
sional will be the ability to navigate in large information repositories"
including the library's database, worldwide databases, and databases devel-
oped within the university. 35 Some predictions of how such systems will be
used have already appeared. For example, Spinrad offers what he terms
"vignettes" describing how atypical student, professor, and administrator
would function in an electronic university, and Lancaster describes how
the scientist could use an electronic information system to create, transmit,
and receive information.37 Some of the "techno-poetic fantasies" cited
earlier also suggest ways in which apersonal workstation could be used.
Technology Assessment: An Appropriate Skepticism
To provide abalanced discussion of technology in support of user
friendliness, it is necessary to interject what John Shelton Lawrence has
termed "appropriate skepticism." In discussing the use of computers for
word processing, he notes that: "Computer users often allow their exhila-
ration with hardware and productivity to displace the critical attention
they formerly gave to their manually produced material. ...The physical
appearance of the computer's output is seductive in this regard; because it
prints absurdity as beautifully as the most carefully wrought expression,
one is tempted not to look beneath its surface." Asimilar danger exists in
the context of user friendly catalogs and other information systems. Prob-
lems may arise if the following factors are not taken into consideration.
Comprehensibility. In apiece entitled "Black Box Blues," Dixon
remarked that "the real danger of the microelectronic era is posed by what
was called, even in the days of macroelectronics, the black box mentality:
passive acceptance of the idea that more and more areas of life will be taken
over by little black boxes whose mysterious workings are beyond our
comprehension." The algorithms followed by computers are not neces-
sarily comprehensible to users. Yet by knowing the basis for system deci-
sions, the user can more appropriately accept, reject, or modify them.
Designers must determine the extent to which computer processes should
be made explicit rather than hidden.
Scope of the system. Agreat deal of effort can be expended to no
purpose if the user seeks information which in fact is not contained in the
system. In order to use the system intelligently, auser needs to understand
its scope i.e., the broad class of questions to which the system is designed
to respond.
Limitations of the system. The attempt to make human-computer
dialogues more like human-human dialogues may lead to an overly
USER FRIENDLY FUTURE
anthropomorphic interpretation of the computer system by users. Without
away to probe the limits of capabilities of a human-like system, the user is
likely to attribute more power to it than it actually has.
Source of information. When information is sought from printed
sources or from other people, the inquirer has some basis for judging the
authoritativeness of the material or the response. By masking aspects of the
search process from the user such as database selection and by present-
ing isolated responses whether citations or facts the inquirer has no
basis for judging the domain covered or the reliability of the response.
Mastery of the system. In apiece entitled "Can Online Catalogs Be
Too Easy?" Arret points out that user easy is not user friendly if progressive
learning and system mastery are sacrificed. If there is no way for the user
to advance beyond the simple searches supported by the user friendly
interface, then there is no way that the full power of the system can be
exploited.
In the spirit of technology assessment, adiscussion of the technology
supporting user friendly systems must acknowledge these potential prob-
lems. Given the current limitations of user friendly systems, users must
develop an appropriate skepticism and designers must explore approaches
to deal with issues such as those enumerated earlier.
Halfway Technology Versus High Technology
In an essay on the technology of medicine written in 1971, Thomas
introduced adistinction between what he termed "halfway technology"
and "high technology." He explained that halfway technology is charac-
terized by things done after the fact in efforts to compensate for the
incapacitating effects of certain diseases. He noted that the real high
technology of medicine comes as the result of agenuine understanding of
disease mechanisms, allowing prevention and/or effective treatment.
Interpreting these concepts in the context of information technology, one
could describe efforts to design more user friendly interfaces to existing
systems as halfway technology, trying to improve access to systems not
initially designed from the perspective of user needs. To achieve high
technology, research is required to understand the needs of the user far
better than is the case today. This theme is echoed by Chapanis who talks of
"taming and civilizing computers" by discovering enough about human
behavior to design computer systems for enhancement and enrichment,42
and by Birnbaum who notes that the "domestication of microelectronics"
will only be achieved by developing computer technology in the context of
what the user wants to do. 43 At present the hardware is far ahead of theory
and research in user customization. Fortunately, there is an increasing
amount of interest and research activity in this area, drawing on behavioral
scientists as well as computer scientists.
116 LINDA SMITH
User Friendly Future
This discussion began with the observation that user friendly is an
anomaly as a technical term. Nickerson has suggested asimple alternative
which may prove more satisfying:
Whether "friendliness" is the right concept is perhaps amatter of taste.
"Usability" strikes me as the more appropriate and completely adequate
concept; in imputing the quality of friendliness to amachine, one is
diluting the meaning of one of the most pleasant of words.
And Burch in turn offers ameasure of usability:45
System transparency is the ultimate, ideal measure of computer usabil-
ity. It is achieved when asystem's overall design is so compatible with the
way the user thinks, talks, listens, remembers, perceives, processes infor-
mation, asks questions, makes decisions, and solves problems, that the
system itself requires none of the user's attention and, in effect, becomes
invisible. It happens in the same way that areader curled up with agood
book becomes unaware of the paper, the typeface, the book itself, or the
room around him.
The current concern for user friendliness can be viewed as an attempt to
cope with halfway technology. Future attention to usability and usefulness
may lead the way toward high technology.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author is indebted to David N. King, who introduced her to Thomas's
discussion of halfway and high technology.
REFERENCES
1. Burch, John L. Computers: The Non-Technological (Human) Factors: ARecom-
mended Reading List on Computer Ergonomics and User Friendly Design. Lawrence,
Kansas: The Report Store, 1984, p. 6.
2. Meadows, A.J., et al. Dictionary of Computing and New Information Technology.
London: Kogan Page, 1984, p. 211.
3. Trenner, L., and Buxton, A.B. "Criteria for User-Friendliness." In 9th International
Online Information Meeting Proceedings, pp. 279-87. Oxford: Learned Information, 1985.
4. Ritchie-Calder, Lord. "Knowing How and Knowing Why." In The New Encyclo-
paedia Britannica Propaedia, 15th ed. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1986, p. 261.
5. Rheingold, Howard. Tools for Thought: The People and Ideas Behind the Next
Computer Revolution. New York: Simon &Schuster, 1985.
6. Bush, Vannevar. "As We May Think." Atlantic Monthly 176(July 1945):101-08.
7. ."As We May Think: ATop U.S. Scientist Foresees aPossible Future
World in Which Man-Made Machines Will Start to Think." Life 19(10 Sept. 1945):112-14,
116, 118, 121, 123-24.
8. "As We May Think," pp. 106-07.
USER FRIENDLY FUTURE 117
9. Ibid., p. 107.
10. "Memex Revisited." In Science Is Not Enough, pp. 75-101. New York:
William Morrow &Company, 1967.
11. Ibid., pp. 99-100.
12. Licklider, J.C.R. Libraries of the Future. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1965.
13. Ibid., p. 6.
14. Ibid., pp. 36-37.
15. ."The View from the Half-Way Point on aJourney to the Future. A
Progress Report on the Interaction between Libraries and Information Technology." In
Large Libraries and New Technological Developments, edited by C. Reedijk etal., pp. 13-34.
Munchen: K.G. Saur, 1984.
16. Ibid., p. 16.
17. Howerton, Paul W.,and Weeks, David C.,eds. The Augmentation of Man's Intellect
by Machine (Vistas in Information Handling, vol. 1). Washington, D.C.: Spartan Books,
1963.
18. Engelbart, Douglas C. "A Conceptual Framework for the Augmentation of Man's
Intellect." In The Augmentation of Man's Intellect by Machine, pp. 1-29.
19. "The Augmented Knowledge Workshop." In ACM Conference on the
History of Personal Workstations, edited by John R. White, pp. 73-83. New York: Association
for Computing Machinery, 1986.
20. Ibid., p. 81.
21. Nelson, Theodor H. "Getting It Out of Our System." In Information Retrieval: A
Critical View, edited by George Schecter, pp. 191-210. Washington, D.C.: Thompson Book
Company, 1967.
22. Ibid., p. 195.
23. Nelson, Ted. Literary Machines. Swarthmore, Pa.: Ted Nelson, 1981.
24. Kay, Alan, and Goldberg, Adele. "Personal Dynamic Media." Computer 10(March
1977):31-41.
25. Ibid., p. 31.
26. Ibid.
27. Shackel, B. "Ergonomics in Information Technology in Europe AReview."
Behaviour and Information Technology 4(Oct.-Dec. 1985):263-87.
28. Bundy, Alan, ed. Catalogue of Artificial Intelligence Tools, 2d ed. Berlin: Springer-
Verlag, 1986.
29. Smith, Sidney L. "Standards versus Guidelines for Designing User Interface Soft-
ware." Behaviour and Information Technology 5(Jan./March 1986):47-61.
30. Rubinstein, Richard, and Hersh, Harry. The Human Factor: Designing Computer
Systems for People. Burlington, Mass.: Digital Press, 1984.
31. Nickerson, Raymond S. Using Computers: The Human Factors of Information
Systems. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1986, p. 226.
32. Perlis, Alan, and White, John R. "Foreword." In ACM Conference on the History of
Personal Workstations, p. v.
33. Chorafas, Dimitris N. Personal Computers and Data Communications. Rockville,
Md.: Computer Science Press, 1986, p. 12.
34. Morris, James H., et al. "Andrew: ADistributed Personal Computing Environ-
ment." Communications of the ACM 29(March 1986):184-201.
35. Ibid., p. 184.
36. Spinrad, Robert. "The Electronic University." In Cohabiting with Computers,
edited by Joseph F. Traub, pp. 43-57. Los Altos, Calif.: William Kaufmann, 1985.
37. Lancaster, F. Wilfrid. Toward Paperless Information Systems. New York: Academic
Press, 1978.
38. Lawrence, John Shelton. The Electronic Scholar: AGuide to Academic Microcom-
puting. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1984, pp. 166-67.
39. Dixon, Bernard. "Black Box Blues." The Sciences 24(March/April 1984):! 1-12.
40. Arret, Linda. "Can Online Catalogs Be Too Easy?" American Libraries 16(Feb.
1985): 11 8-20.
118 LINDA SMITH
41. Thomas, Lewis. "Notes of aBiology-Watcher: The Technology of Medicine." New
England Journal of Medicine 285(9 Dec. 1971): 1366-68.
42. Chapanis, Alphonse. "Taming and Civilizing Computers. "Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences 426(1 Nov. 1984):202-19.
43. Birnbaum, Joel S. "Toward the Domestication of Microelectronics." Communica-
tions of the ACM 28(Nov. 1985): 1225-35.
44. Nickerson, Using Computers, p. 152.
45. Burch, Computers, p. 17.
