skip to main content
10.1145/800049.801816acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Free Access

Analogy considered harmful

Published:15 March 1982Publication History

ABSTRACT

The computer is like a typewriter. The computer is like a filing cabinet. The computer is a personal servant ready to obey your every command.

It is often claimed (e.g., Carroll and Thomas [3], Rumelhart and Norman [7]) that the best way to introduce a new user to a computer system is to draw an analogy between the computer and some situation familiar to the user. Given the analogy, the new user can draw upon his knowledge about the familiar situation in order to reason about the workings of the mysterious new computer system. For example, if the new user wants to understand about how the computer file system works, he need only think about how an office filing cabinet works and then carry over this same way of thinking to the computer file system.

References

  1. 1.du Boulay, B., O'Shea, T., and Monk, J. The black box inside the glass box: presenting computing concepts to novices. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 1981, 14, 237-250.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.Carbonell, J. G. Metaphor: an inescapable phenomenon in natural language comprehension. Technical Report, Carnegie-Mellon University, Department of Computer Science, May 1981.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.Carroll, J. M., and Thomas, J. C. Metaphor and the cognitive representation of computing systems. Report RC 8302, IBM Watson Research Center, May 1980.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.Gentner, D. The structure of analogical models in science. Report 4451, Bolt Beranek and Newman, July 1980.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.Moran, T. P. The Command Language Grammar: a representation for the user interface of interactive computer systems. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 1981, 15, 3-50.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. 7.Rumelhart, D. E., and Norman, D. A. Analogical processes in learning. In J. R. Anderson (ed.), Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition, Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1981, 335-360.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.Young, R. M. The machine inside the machine: users' models of pocket calculators. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 1981, 15, 51-85.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Analogy considered harmful

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            CHI '82: Proceedings of the 1982 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
            March 1982
            399 pages
            ISBN:9781450373890
            DOI:10.1145/800049

            Copyright © 1982 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 15 March 1982

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • Article

            Acceptance Rates

            CHI '82 Paper Acceptance Rate75of165submissions,45%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader