The “Computer as Assistant” Fallacy
Metaphors, Not Conversations
Why Johnny can’t program

When I said “chauffeur” I mean something that does it for you in a non-transparent way that you have to just trust will do it right and can’t check how it’s doing it. By “Ferrari” I meant something that is responsive and that gives you lots of control when you want it. (You can drive a Ferrari around town to buy groceries but you can also make very sharp turns, accelerate fast, feel the road, etc.) You don’t trust your refrigerator to know what temperature to keep things at — you need to choose yourself between the main part and the freezer, but it’s obvious how to do that. I didn’t mean simple vs. complex, I meant black-box automatic vs. wysiwyg with many obvious ways to get fine control that you use yourself.

As I point out in another essay in the book, When The Long Tail Wags The Dog, what people want is the ability to do anything when they want and not be stuck with what the system does automatically as envisioned by a developer.

Here’s the quote from the beginning of the “Assistant” essay:

There has been a lot of talk lately about how computers are too hard to learn to use. There is a longing for devices you can just pick up and use without training. Microsoft’s Kai-fu Lee was quoted in The New York Times as saying, when discussing the more “natural and intelligent” user interfaces he hopes to create, “My dream is that the computer of the future is going to be an assistant to the user.”

This type of thinking strikes me as strange. We don’t ask for our automobiles to be more natural and intelligent, nor do we call for the next generation of cars to be like chauffeurs. With cars, we talk about responsiveness, comfort, power, cargo size, and safety. Tools are effective and appropriate to the task. Learning to use them is part of being human.

While a goal of simplicity may be worthwhile for many infrequently used devices that happen to use computing power, I have a real problem with this view of the computer in general, and especially the personal computer. I believe that the computer has a very important role to play in our society, and that that role will require us to continue to deal with its quirks and special needs.

I hope this makes things a little clearer.

Sure, sufficiently technically sophisticated folks can pick up Linux fairly easily but such skills are as to alien linguistics and quantum mechanics to ordinary computer using folk.

… a gleaming red Ferrari, door open, keys swinging from the lock and engine gently purring with a promise of power…

Give me a nice shiny road bike any day!

In the interview you were listening to I was making reference to chapter 7 of my new book, Bricklin on Technology, “Tools: My Philosophy about What We Should Be Developing.” The specific essay that the chauffeur quote came from is on my web site as “The ‘Computer As Assistant’ Fallacy”, but I have lots more written in the book, which includes other essays (including one not on my web site yet) and commentary. I agree, as you point out here, there are lots of times when you don’t want to interact much and have the computer carry on without you (and I addressed that a little in the essay). When you do want to have control (like in a thermostat) you want the right interface. I cover that a lot in that chapter of the book.

I’m glad you found the interview stimulating.

-DanB