[Sugar-devel] versus, not

[Walter Bender]

On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Bill Kerr <billkerr at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Bill Kerr <billkerr at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > however, I do think the roll back of enlightenment principles is not
>> > well
>> > understood (http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/nonUniversals) and
>> > that a
>> > better understanding might persuade more people of the need to keep
>> > searching and struggling for different ways to go against some of  the
>> > tide
>> > of local culture - there is a recent interesting comment thread on mark
>> > guzdial's blog which is worth reading from this point of view
>> > http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3F4TMBURELZZK
>> >
>>
>> Regarding Guzdial's blog, I am optimistic. While I had always feared
>> that "phone culture" would turn us into a society of consumers of
>> services that Ma Bell chose for us; but the iPhone and the Android are
>> programmable and, while Apple is the iPhone gatekeeper, the meme that
>> phones can be programmed is spreading. This is a huge step forward.
>
> I'd also point out that there are some other great themes in the mark
> guzdial comments thread, eg. the difficult question of the need to transcend
> a  marketing approach (dialogue b/w mark guzdial and alan kay)
>
> I've recently had some striking experiences from a couple of people - both
> huge mac fans - who I thought perversely avoided anything to do with
> programming, including visual drag and drop using scratch or even raw HTML
> markup
>
> The Guzdial blog helped me make the connection - that the mac way does in
> fact brainwash people to the mentality that everything is perfect, beautiful
> and shiny as it comes packaged to you, that there is an app for everything.
>
> Although I find that most students will accept "simple" challenges such as
> scratch programming and become absorbed in them this minority(?) trend does
> worry me - Guzdial's blog is pretty  much devoted to the theme of how induce
> more students into programming in view of the trend to falling enrolments in
> programming courses (in Australia too, as well as the USA)
>
> I then thought of some notes I made a couple of years ago after reading John
> Maxwell's history of the dynabook
> (http://thinkubator.ccsp.sfu.ca/Dynabook/dissertation):
> http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/alanKay+talk
>
> What sort of user interface is suitable for learning?
>
> We have become very used to a certain style of user interface, one which is
> “user friendly” and which gives us access to the function of the computer.
> The user friendly user interface has been designed by experts to not demand
> too much of the end user. Some systems take this a step further and actively
> discourage the user from becoming curious about how things work under the
> hood.
>
> It is not just a matter of “user friendly”, in itself that is not serious
> grounds for complaint. It is the idea of users as users of clearly defined
> applications that have been developed by “experts”. In large part this state
> of things has arisen through commercialisation. A marketable commodity
> requires a clear definition. So proprietary applications are developed as a
> black box as an expression of “efficient software engineering”. In this
> commercial vision the “personal computer” is not really personal because
> most of its interfaces have been standardised which transforms the actors
> into docile agents who respond in predictable ways to stimuli.
>
> “my life belongs to the engineers ... we hesitate to exist” (Latour)
> “The self evident state of the art blinds people to other possibilities”
> (Andy diSessa)
>
> If you start from a more philosophical perspective of amplifying human
> reach, of computer as a meta medium for expressing the creative spirit then
> the attitude to the user is different. The user, as well as being a user, is
> also a potential constructionist designer and developer who eventually will
> be able to create their own tools. So, the tools for exploring the system
> should be powerful and easily accessible. This is one of the features of
> Smalltalk.
>
> The ethic is one of mutability and simplicity. Every component of a system
> is open to be explored, investigated, modified and built upon. The tool /
> medium distinction is blurred and so is a lot of other false clarity. Rather
> than a world of reified “experts”, “engineers”, “designers”, “end-users”,
> “miracle workers” and “plain folks” it would be better to blur these
> boundaries, particularly for learning environments.
>

Elliott Soloway summed it up nicely: Learning-centric design should be our goal.

-walter

-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org