A4BenJacobsonAaronCephersZaynabAnisiMaryamGooyabadi

A4BenJacobsonAaronCephersZaynabAnisiMaryamGooyabadi

To-Do

1. which was the most interesting idea/concept you learned from the article?
2. articulate what you did not understand in the article but it sounded interesting and you would like to know more about it
3. compare the ideas/argumentation/functionality for DODEs with the EDC demonstration given in the class meeting on February 11!
4. one major objective of the article, the commentaries, and the reply is to understand the best role distribution between humans and computers in joint human-computer systems (or socio-technical environments)! Comment of this issues from your personal experience!

Most interesting idea/concept

1. The more in depth method of finding solutions for a given problem can happen only when the problem itself is clearly understood - to know what the problem itself is asking rather than emphasis on finding solutions alone. However, this process of understanding is often times the hardest part of the given problem. When designers truly understand the problem - what it is asking, the likelihood of them being able to provide the best possible contribution to a solution is increased.

In addition, the manner in which a problem was framed can be of great assistance in leading a programmer to understand the given problem and possibly discover an appropriate solution. It is interesting to see how framing the problem in various, more intuitive ways - sum-of15 vs. tick-tack-toe, might give further understanding and lead to a solution.

The more emphasis DODE's give to humans and designers rather than simple automated systems, the more useful the solutions will be in "real life" as the end users are humans. This gives good reason to believe that humans will have an enhanced vision of their design environment and will know how to design even greater artifacts, rather than what would be produced from an automated system that designs it according to an algorithm which had its "Buttons pushed" by a human.

What you did not understand

It would be interesting to understand how DODE could be uniformly defined and work in all domains. If there is limitation on the applicable domains to use DODE, the way in which a problem is framed will be influenced greatly. Is there such limitation as to where the DODE can be used? For example: The framing of a problem might work well for a "certain algorithm" but not necessarily for a "life support on a space ship" algorithm.

Also, throughout the article when discussing the "languages of doing", the ways in which it supports a design environment remained vague. What are some concrete supporting mechanisms which enhance the environments directly?

Compare DODE with EDC

EDC is a good example of the implementation of a DODE system. The EDC contains many tools in which enable the user to participate individually or as a group of users simultaneously. This enhances collaboration which may lead to finding possible solutions to a problem. In the EDC, users need not be professional programmers, they simply must learn how to work in the environment and this is an advantage to the EDC which allows users to participate further. The simplicity in using the EDC promotes diversity of users - there are no limitations to who the end user can possibly be. DODE provides guidelines to find possible solutions whereas EDC contains tools to promote human interaction, with each other and with the computer, only providing information necessary to solve a problem rather than having computers solve them.

Furthermore the EDC abstracts the problem into something which is tangible to real people, and not only experts in the given domain. You can interact with the board very easily; this allows minimal interference on the path towards a solution. You can understand problems with your solution by running real simulations. It's like debugging a solution before its actually implemented.

Comment on the best role distribution

Computers entered social life in various ways and have both interacted with humans and enabled human-to-human interaction. In these interactions, the computer should aid humans in the most transparent way possible in their daily activities in order to ensure the users will continue this use with ease. There are various mediums in which a person can communicate with another individual but, the most transparent of these options is the one which become the most popular amongst users. For example, Email was very easy to use in the beginning of the internet, especially in comparison to regular, posted mail. When cell phone came, many people could instantaneously communicate with a person wherever they were, without the internet. Cell phones became a preferred way of communication as it had fewer limitations than the house-phone and the internet - a need of a computer. As cell phones gained more popularity, text messaging systems enabled communication that was quick, easy, and in unobtrusive ways. A text message, a form of communication, was sent even if the user was unable to answer immediately. The more the transparent the technology the more humans will interact with it.

It seems the applications used for socio-technical environments are skewed to the point where they are almost only seen as a means for entertainment purposes and little to no observation or consideration for their true potential being met. There is little to no evidence of people making a serious effort to improve this situation. This is the tipping point in which will drive human social interaction to a new level of communication and understanding. After viewing the EDC in class, it was much clearer to see how one could improve the current situation of these environments to boost human interactions while still using the computer and boosting human creativity in general.