1. what did you find

1.1. interesting about the article?

I found the concept that people sometimes manipulate interfaces to represent information that does not directly pertain to the things that the interface represents, very intersting. The two examples in particular that intrigued me were of users arranging files on a desktop in a particular pattern, and pilots using the test pattern on the weather radar as a reminder of a fuel transfer.

This all goes to show that the way users use something is not always the way it was meant to be used. But that's ok, too.

I was also really intrigued by the idea of digital files and objects acruing a visible history, much like real world objects visually display histories of certain interaction.

1.2. not interesting about the article?

Some of the cognitive model stuff was a bit beyond me, largely, I think, because I lack the background, and thus, a lot of the jargon, to fully understand it.

2. what do you consider the main message of the article?

That we can(or should) no longer look at interfaces in a piecemeil manner, looking only at the user for the cognitive model, but rather, at the system as a whole, and see the congition emerge from it.

3. the article talks about “new foundations” for HCI

3.1. please discuss a couple of “old foundations” for HCI

That what is inside a persons head is where the intelligence is, and the interface they interact with is merely a tool to accomplish a goal, but not part of the cognitive process

Taht users only interact with interfaces for what the interface was designed for, and don't place any additional information with in it than was intended.

3.2. how “new” according to your knowledge are these “new foundations”?

For me, it's largely just a different way of talking about ideas I'd already been exposed to.

4. in the class on Jan 14, 2004, we showed a multi-media show about the CLever project ‡ question: which elements of distributed cognition are described in this video?

The CLever project utilizes elements of distributed cognition relating to prompting the user's memory. The handheld doesn't perform the necessary action for the user, but rather servers as a reminder, jogging the user's memory, and prompting them when they deviate from the expected actions.

5. here is a quote from Neil Postman: “anatomy is not destiny: The invention of eyeglasses in the twelfth century not only made it possible to improve defective vision but suggested the idea that human beings need not accept as final either the endowments of nature nor the ravages of time. Eyeglasses refuted the belief that anatomy is destiny by putting forward the idea that our minds as well as our bodies are improvable!”

5.1. argue what the this quote has to do with the article?

The arguement is that eyeglasses can be used to improve defective vision, thus, ignoring defective vision as a evolutionary selection criteria. Similarly, the article implies that through similar mechanical aids for cognition, we can improve upon our minds, and thus be smarter, think harder, and achieve more.

5.2. do you agree with the quote?

I do. I used to believe that Darwin still reigned supreme, and to some extent, he does, when our technology fails us. But to a large extent, our technology has gotten to a point that having "bad genes" does not really result in the individual being removed from the gene pool. Rather, wealth, education, and family background have much more of an effect upon the propogation of that individual's genes. Have a weak heart? Not a problem - if you have the cash.

Similarly, while I believe that we have a lot to gain from integrating cognitive aids more fully into our lives, it will likely still remain something that is only available to the upper echelon of society.