--- Clark Savage Turner <csturner@slonet.org> wrote:
"I am concerned with the *engineering* of software,
especially the interfaces. The "engineer," by
definition, is tasked to produce a machine that is
*useful* to the humans who will use it. If many users
have trouble using the software defined machine, this
is an engineering failure, not a user failure.
Usability can be improved vastly, though it takes some
resources."
This is very true, however the end users need to be
able to articulate what it is that they *really* want
to do with the computer/radio interface. The sad truth
is that many end users can't really do this very
effectively, and many more have never actually thought
about what it is that they really want to do that is
*beyond* the constraints of their existing radios. The
end result is a tendency to have software control
programs that mostly emulate regular radios that
everyone is most familiar with, - this is not the best
use of computer technology with radio. There is a
deeply entrenched concept/perception of how a "radio"
has to look, work, and "feel" to be overcome, which is
hard to do. The current radio norm was defined many
years ago when using a knob to tune was the most
intuitive and effective way to move around the band,
there was no better and affordable technology then to
use, - now there is.
To really make good use of computer technology you
really need to get "into your own headspace" and think
about how you actually perceive/visualize the radio
spectrum? When you visualize/think about a typical ham
band in your mind do you only "see" a series of
discrete numbers like a typical digital display
depicts? Or do you visualize a broad "horizon" with
features on it that represent the signals scattered up
and down the band? What about the time dimension?
-What did the band "look" like 5, 10, 30, or? ...
seconds ago? While displaying a slice of radio
spectrum on the radio panel itself is a good idea, -
it is still very limited as to what can really be
done, or what would be truly ideal, you simply can't
cram everything needed for this onto a small 5 inch or
so display. Even with these displays you're obliged to
use knob to get to the signal that you do see,
wouldn?t pointing (like you would to an object on the
"horizon") be more intuitive? This is were the great
performing PC's of today come in, they are perfect for
the job, - but only if they are properly interfaced to
radio, - and only if the radio is truly designed to be
interfaced with.
WA3JPG:
"In general, though, software "engineers" have to
learn how to produce software that is useful for
humans, as natural and intuitive as possible. (We
have a long way to go!)"
Right again, but sadly *all* the inexpensive
underlying technology is already here today but
remains almost totally unused in ham radio. What is
lacking is a sense of direction amongst the radio
manufacturers and engineers. This is because there is
a broad based lack of understanding in the ham radio
community about what is already possible. If only hams
collectively would think about radios differently and
with an open mind we could then ask the manufacture to
make this stuff. That's where my frequent
soapbox/cheerleading postings to this group and
eHam.net come in :).
Just trying to plant some seeds, - maybe in 5-10 years
from now there will be some really good computer
integrated radios available.
Duane
N9DG
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
|