Jargon and the Burden of Knowing

[gfish]

The BBC has an article about how technical jargon confuses people. I didn't give it much thought until I was bored and read the Slashdot commentary. There are a lot of good points either way and it got me thinking.

So, the question is: is it right to expect people to learn technical details? My natural instinct is to say yes, but I have trouble defending that position to myself.

On one hand, I have no trouble saying that if you use a highly technical device without knowing about it, you deserve no sympathy when things go wrong. On the other hand, I certainly don't know that much about cars, yet I drive (more than I would like to) and occasionally put myself in situations where a car failure would be an extremely inconvenient and/or dangerous situation.

I think most of the problems come from the disparity between the reality of computers and how they are marketed. They are not appliances. They are not as simple to use as a toaster, or a sewing machine, or a car. Second only to other people, they are the most complicated, varied, mutable things you will ever deal with. When people find out that they're not a magical appliance but instead an amazingly complicated, amazingly powerful tool they get all huffy about it. This is what really incurs my scorn, because I just can't fathom this response. You're handed the freaking universe on a titanium platter, and you're whining about having to do some work to learn how to use it? Boo fucking hoo.

Thoughts? Am I an hypocritical, elitist technocrat, or am I just surrounded by drones who should stick to throwing beer cans at their TV?

Comments

[9thmoon.livejournal.com]

I vote beer cans.
If you want an appliance, buy a webtv.

[eeyorerin]

I think that this is why technical writers should be given more money. ;)

But seriously, I do think that more time should be spent documenting technologies and providing ways for people to learn these things, as well as designing interfaces that make it easier to interact with technologies that allow for that kind of learning in ways that seem more natural.

[ilmarinen.livejournal.com]

I'm split on the issue. I think computer interfaces, etc., are simply not very mature. The modern pace of the world does not lend itself to good design, and my understanding of the computer world is that is even more so than in other areas. So, computers often suck. True, it is amazing the capabilities and price these days, but it is unreasonable to expect the users to deal with all the issues they do. And, often, programs behave is psychotic ways. Part of that has to do with those who program them not thinking enough like the end user. Hang-on before you knee-jerk respond to that . . . often, it is the programmers who are ignorant. They don't do the things people want to use the computer to do and make really stupid choices about things.

This example is not of PCs per se, but it was an amusing magazine article I read: this guy was recounting how his mom bought a new oven--it could be programed to start cooking at X degrees any time in the next year, etc. Yet, there was no way to program it to change temperatures during cooking except for manually resetting everything. Obviously, the whiz-kids who programed it knew nothing about cooking.

Similarly, I often get that feeling about those who design engineering design software.

When one looks at a mechanical device, there are obvious clues about how it should work--crank this lever, turns that wheel and so forth. Computers (in their various incarnations as Cell Phones, PDAs, Teller Machines, etc.) are hard because they are arbitrary. There is no intuition to how they should work--except perhaps for common culture shared between those who programed it and those who are trying to use it. I think many of us would agree there is a big culture gap between most computer users and those who program them.

And trying to find good documentation is often a nightmare.

I don't have a ready solution, but those in the business should avoid dismissing the problem as "the users." That arrogance is used to avoid responsibility for the real problems. I think the field needs to mature, and better design skills should emerge (I hope). It scares me to say, after seeing what Windows did to programs, but there needs to be some standards for interface design, etc. By which I mean for the process of how to do a good design, not that every interface should be a window with "help" in the upper right corner. Probably already are efforts towards that.

Uhm, I'm going to stop blabbing now.

PS, this rant is inspired by the topic, not necessarily on-topic. As for computer terms, there is far too much marketing-driven terminology. And the same problem occurs in all fields/products. They are always making-up new words for stuff.

[vixyish.livejournal.com]

Dear, I love you very much, but you've *always* been a hypocritical, elitist techocrat. However, that doesn't mean you're not surrounded by drones who should stick to throwing beer cans at their TV.

I think what we were talking about that one time, about people refusing to apply logic to computers (and banks), is the reality. It's hypocritical and elitist to consider people stupid if they don't already know what you do-- and there's an unfortunate majority in the computer arena who behave this way. It's perfectly reasonable, however, to consider people stupid if they shut off their minds completely and then get mad at you for knowing what you do-- and there's an unfortunate majority in the mundane arena who behave this way. And therefrom arises the clash. People need to be willing to learn-- but you also need to be willing to teach them.

Take your analogy. You don't know about cars-- but when the car breaks, you find out as much as you can, and if it's something you can fix, you do, but if it's something you can't, you take it to someone who can. And *there's nothing wrong with that*. There are some things on the car you just can't fix, and you have to defer to the people with more knowledge (and better tools) than you. Experts exist because nobody has time to learn everything, and not everyone is interested in every skill. Likewise, there's nothing wrong with owning a computer and not knowing how to fix everything about it, and taking it to the people with more knowledge and better tools when there's something wrong with it. What's wrong is the people who say 'don't tell me anything, I don't want to know, I just don't get this computer stuff' and treat it like it's a big magic object that follows no rules whatsoever. (That drives me nuts too, though probably on a less advanced scale than you because it's on a less advanced scale that I encounter it.)

I guess it's all about degrees. I have a cow-orker who today referred to the CPU as the monitor, and when I asked what he meant, said 'oh whatever, I'm just not a computer person.' I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to get the NAMES right. Of course, we're kind of talking about knowing the engine from the windshield, at that point.

On the whole, I think both the technocrats and the drones largely suffer each from their own brand of closed-mindedness.

On a lighter note, I meant to ask you if you'd read this Onion article Steve showed me, called something like "It's Not Nice to Know More Than Other People."

[corivax.livejournal.com]

Uh, I went and read the article. And I still didn't know a lot of the terms the article referred to. Granted, the things I didn't know were gadget-things, like "DVR", not computer-things, like "megahertz". I like to think of myself as a member of the technical elite. I have a degree in computer science. I've made money to live off of coding, and enjoyed it.

But because I do consider myself far more tech-savvy than it is reasonable to expect Joe Average to be, there's gotta be too much poorly-defined jargon.

> You're handed the freaking universe on a titanium platter, and you're whining about having to do some work to learn how to use it?

Uh... probing the wonders of the universe is all very well, but rather annoying if you just wanted to make toast.