|
OP is ... This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| an autist |
|
5 | 9.26% |
| a nerd |
|
12 | 22.22% |
| both |
|
37 | 68.52% |
| Total: | 54 votes | ||
|
Jerry Cotton posted:
From my experience, even moving from a mouse-based to a touch-based input has significant impact on how you think about designing your interface, and that's a smaller step than "typing stuff to put into a computer" to "using a keyboard and mouse", so I'm going to call bullshit on that one.
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:IBM is still using this for their corporate mail client (or was in TYOOL 2014 when I quit). Jesus wept. Yup.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:This just gets into the political weeds about whether Universities exist to prepare people for work or to advance, maintain, and spread knowledge. Historically they did the latter, but people now expect the former. I still think there is a lot of value in thinking about information, data structures, etc from a strictly academic perspective, but I can understand why people who are attending as a part of a resume for wage-slavery prefer a jobs focused approach. User interface and design has a lot of theory to it, as well. It's silly to silo off computational systems from the fact that people interact with them, and academic purity is no excuse.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:"Real" computer science is a math class and doesn't even really have a computer involved, You could do a whole computer science degree and never learn a programming language except the fact people also want jobs beyond thinking about algorithms abstractly. It's not being too hoity toity to learn UIs, it's like saying that a biochemist should learn bedside manner like a doctor, it's someone interacting with medicine at a different level. That's not true at all. A computer science degree that doesn't talk about computer design and organization, compiler design, etc, is not worth taking. It would be of benefit to have some talk of human interfaces because that's a substantial form of input that these computational systems get these days, pretty much since we got away from punch cards. Much like a biochemist's training should start them on the rudiments of physical chemistry and quantum mechanics, even if they personally will barely use it in grad school if they really focus on biochemistry.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Sorry, major major brain fart. I am pretty sure I meant that the shutdown option kept changing, but my brain ain't what it was. This is your brain on Windows. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:You just do not understand what is being talked about. We are talking about the science of information and you are talking about microprocessors and the tools that talk to them which interact with that information. There's a reason the originators of Information Science like Shannon were working very closely with really existing hardware and circuits. The constraints you put on the theoretical models for computation are informed by real problems encountered in information processing in the real world of reality, any kind of "science of information" you're doing that is completely divorced from that belongs in a subspecialization of mathematics with an occasional LNM issue. Not to devalue that kind of research, but it's not what I would use to guide the curriculum of someone doing a Bachelor's in Computer Science.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:In real life people generally want to get jobs so they bother to stick in some actual practical training in computer science towards being an actual programmer but at least conceptually that isn't what computer science is. It's a branch of mathematics. No, it is not. It's a field that started as an interdisciplinary collaboration between mathematicians, electrical and electronics engineers, and designers, before becoming a bit of a vaguely-described discipline that is still finding its way. That is why in many places CS started out as a subfield of EE before branching out, rather than from the Math department.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:Not sure that anyone has suggested that. What we're saying is that there is a friction between the academic ideals of studying information for its own sake or the practical applications demanded by people who want jobs and need to realize economic advantages because they've mortgaged their future income to earn a degree. I just don't think an undergraduate degree should be that specialized. I have had long discussions about this issues, with people responsible for curricula both in Israel, where undergrads are way more specialized, and the US, where there is a slowly eroding sense of a liberal arts education, major or no; the consensus is that over-specialization of the form that would have someone get a degree in CS in which they don't even program would be failing the students, even if they begrudge being forced to learn a bit wider. If someone goes through a computer science undergrad, then decides to specialize in an abstract version of information science in grad school, then no, it does not necessarily make sense to force them to go through UI training. That being said, a PhD is expected to have a little bit of broader understanding than their specialization, which is why there are more wide-ranging qualification/preliminary/comprehensive exams, explicitly requiring the person to have a wider understanding. I could see why someone studying Information Science in a Mathematics department would not have UI as their other subjects (maybe two out of Algebra, Topology, Analysis and Geometry would make more sense).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:But adding in something specialized like UI design IS making the degree more specialized. It's going on an assumption that the person will be writing front ends of programs that even have front ends. (And no, being general doesn't just mean making someone take a bunch of 101 classes in every possible topic and having them take one semester of UI design and one semester of API design and one semester in hardware interface design to make sure they are equally equipped to have a poor basic understanding of all the different things their program could be expected to interface with. I'm sorry, but that is literally how a reasonable undergrad does look. You get a taste of many things, a class or two on hardware, several classes on aspects of software, theoretical and practical, then do a bit of specialization in your 3rd/4rth year, preferably around a final project, although with electives as well. If you then want to be a complexity theorist and never look at code again, great, but that's not what an undergrad is about, because you're too young and stupid to know what you want to do when you're 18 and getting into undergrad, and an undergraduate program's job is to protect you from over-specializing yourself. As for whether UI/UX should be a mandatory class or an elective, I am not sure. You have to make compromises when you create something that people need to finish within 3-4 years. But the situation when I was in undergrad is that our CS department had no such course, nor did any other department provide it as a potential elective, and it was definitely not recommended, and I think it would make for an absolutely reasonable change to put it in.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 21:27
|
|