Softening Up Hard Science: Reply to Newell and Card
- 1 September 1986
- journal article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Human–Computer Interaction
- Vol. 2 (3), 227-249
- https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci0203_3
Abstract
A source of intellectual overhead periodically encountered by scientists is the call to be "hard," to ensure good science by imposing severe methodological strictures. Newel1 and Card (1985) undertook to impose such strictures on the psychology of human-computer interaction. Although their discussion contributes to theoretical debate in human-computer interaction by setting a reference point, their specific argument fails. Their program is unmotivated, is severely limited, and suffers from these limitations in principle. A top priority for the psychology of human-computer interaction should be the articulation of an alternative explanatory program, one that takes as its starting point the need to understand the real problems involved in providing better computer tools for people to use.Keywords
This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- Interface design issues for advice-giving expert systemsCommunications of the ACM, 1987
- LisaLearningComputer, 1986
- Vestiges of Logical Positivism: Critiques of Stage ExplanationsHuman Development, 1985
- Building a user-derived interfaceCommunications of the ACM, 1984
- An iterative design methodology for user-friendly natural language office information applicationsACM Transactions on Information Systems, 1984
- Categorization of action slips.Psychological Review, 1981
- Algebraic semanticsLecture Notes in Computer Science, 1981
- Diagnostic models for procedural bugs in basic mathematical skillsCognitive Science, 1978
- Plans and the structure of behavior.Published by American Psychological Association (APA) ,1960
- Verbal behaviorLanguage, 1959