The processes, limits and capabilities of computers and humans are related, compared and contrasted through Dix’s exploration of cognitive psychology and technology in Human-Computer Interaction. The text states, “In order to design something for someone, we need to understand their capabilities and limitations.” What I find interesting about this is the fact that we have thus far studied how technology affects our brain. In this article, we see how the study of the brain actually preceded the invention of computer technology and why that was necessary.
Computers are designed to assist humans seamlessly during day to day life, adding to our scope of ability and extending the limits of our information processing. When thinking about human cognition, we have stages of information processing that can be seen in the process of a computer. The two are highly comparable, yet a computer’s range of ability is far more vast. Humans first perceive something based on sensory input from our visual, audible, olfactory, and touch systems. Then, we take that information and store it as sensory, short-term or long-term memory to create a sort of software or drive that we can refer back to when that information applies to current life.
It’s really interesting that not only can these processes sort of be modeled by the way computers function, but they are also kept in mind as computers are designed. Dix asserts, “To do this, those who design these systems need to know how to think in terms of the eventual users’ tasks and how to translate that knowledge into an executable system.” Technology is meant to make our lives easier, so we have attuned it to our cognitive processes and sensory abilities. The size, brightness and colors of the screen are considered; “haptic perception” appeals to our sense of touch; and audio is suited for human hearing.
Where humans and animals differ from computers and other artificial intelligence is related to the way we grapple with the information that gets stored in our brains. We take fact and manipulate it, draw conclusions from it, make connections to it, and use it to problem solve. Some of those complex processes are what makes the brain so transcendent. On the other hand, we are prone to human error which computers don’t experience.
Despite the fact that human brains can be looked at and thought about in a standardized way, there is so much diversity within the human species. Almost all aspects of our psychology are influenced by a mix of biology (evolution and genetics) and the environment (learning, social interaction, experience). The number of factors that cause us to think and act in certain ways are plentiful, creating so much heterogeneity. This plays such a huge role in media effects, and makes it difficult to account for in the technology’s creation.
“On a more mundane level, designs should allow for users who are under pressure, feeling ill or distracted by other concerns: they should not push users to their perceptual or cognitive limits,” Dix said. The way technology is invented with the goal to target all human users, despite the individual differences, seems to undermine the goal to extend the limits of our processing. I would love to know more about how technology companies balance this need to significantly expand human ability with technology while also remaining accessible and convenient for such a vast user-base.
I found your understanding of this article to be incredibly clear and straightforward. This is all so interesting, both in how humans and computers think similarly intentionally, so that technology truly becomes a tool. I really understood what you meant how it is designed with humans in mind. It makes so much sense how humans are able to make conclusions and manipulate what we hear when computers aren’t able to, but even your point about human error is so true! these pros and cons really do even out all in the end.
Overall, I find it really interesting that we, as humans that make mistakes an errors, were able to make these machines that do not make these same errors. We made this computers for us, based off us, yet they seemingly exceed our technical abilities as humans. I like the way you framed your discussion by recognizing that mostly so far, we have discussed how technology influences us and our brains, but this article takes a new perspective through the way that our brains were used to create machines like computers. As you stated, we take facts, manipulate them, draw conclusions, and use connections to problem solve. These complex processes are what make our brains so fascinating and as you put it, transcendent, but once you consider it from the perspective that computers can do all the same things—minus the errors—this transcendence is a little lost. This reminds me of a part of my article by Harper, which evaluates the transformation of interaction. One transformation is the growing techno-dependence—but who are we to blame that we are more reliant on computers if they are more accurate than us? However, like you state, this works to undermine us in the way that we aren’t extending the limits of our processing, we are using the computer to do our processing for us.