🚀 go-pugleaf

I'd like to take a moment (or two) to respond to Dave Taylor's discussion on
`Literacy versus Computer Literacy'.

Literacy, as the word is used by most people, means a minimum, but general,
knowledge or competency with a language.  We would expect a literate person to
be able to read a newspaper and sign his or her name, but not necessarily to be
able to give eloquent impromptu discourse on the influence of Cicero on P. B.
Shelley.

Computer literacy, if it means anything at all, signifies a minimum general
knowledge of, or competency with, computers.  What exactly constitutes minimum
general competency, however, is hard to say.

For example, I have a degree in electrical and computer engineering and
understand computer architecture enough to know that computers are made from PC
boards, which contain IC chips, which contain registers and flip-flops, which
are made from logic gates, which are made up of transistors.... et cetera.

Presented with an unfamiliar computer, however, I may not even be able to find
the ON/OFF switch, let alone `get the job done' with it.  Unfamiliar operating
systems would also pose a problem.  Does this make me `computer illiterate?'
Is there such a thing as `VAX-11 literacy' distinct from `IBM 3600 literacy'
distinct from `ECLIPSE/MV 10000 literacy,' et cetera?

I maintain that computer literacy is NOT an ability to perform a specified task
with a computer, but a general understanding of what a computer is and what it
can do.  Based on that understanding, a computer literate person can, in time,
learn to perform specific tasks on specific computers. (Other tasks, such as
operating microprocessor-controlled household appliances, may not require this
literacy.)

Similarly, an english-literate person may or may not immediately comprehend a
specific word or specific sentence, but given time, (s)he can look up
unfamiliar words, pay particular attention to punctuation, and eventually
interpret the sentence.

When someone `knows' English, what they know is the syntax, the rules for
forming sentences and conjugating verbs; they don't necessarily know every
word in the dictionary.

Similarly, when someone `knows' computers, what they know isn't PDP-8
architecture or how system calls are handled in UNIX.  Rather, they possess
general knowledge of `computer syntax':  what accumulators and memory do, what
assembly language and microcode are, and the role of operating systems.

To suggest that computer literacy involves the ability to use a system without
understanding it is dangerously misleading.  It confuses familiarity with a
specific machine with general knowledge and understanding, and blurs the
distinction between `literacy' and `proficiency'.

I also felt that Dave's article served to obfuscate rather than clarify the
distinction between english literacy and computer literacy due to an
unfortunate emphasis on electronic communication.

Dave envisions a future in which people communicate with pictures over computer
networks without any need for words.  He seems to think that computers will
ultimately render not only English, but all written language obsolete.

I don't buy it for one minute.  The ability to send pictures over networks is
fine, but to suggest that pictures alone will convey thoughts better than
writing is tantamount to saying that our ancestors who drew pictograms on cave
walls communicated better than we do today!  (Ever notice that all newspapers
accompany their photos with captions?)

While it is true that computers can be used to communicate, knowing about
computers has little to do with knowing how to communicate.  Language, whether
spoken or written, English or Arabic, Swahili or AMSLAN, is the essence of
communication.

If you do not know how to communicate, computers will not help you.  Neither
will cordless telephones, ham radios, or owning your own newspaper or TV
station.

I find Dave's objection to poor or handicapped people having to learn a
language utterly incomprehensible.  To communicate, one must know a language.
Computers can never replace language.  Computers are, at most, an efficient
medium for transmitting language.

On the other hand, I agree wholeheartedly with Dave's concern for ergonomics
and simpler user interfaces.  Computers will not be useful in communication or
any other area if people are intimidated from using them.  Computer designers
need to design computers for people other than computer designers!

But let us recognize that no computer, no matter how easy it is to use, will
enable people with poor language skills to communicate well, any more than it
will feed the hungry or eliminate disease.  Further, let's not confuse
proficiency with a particular computer tool with general knowledge of what
makes computers tick.

I, for one, am not disturbed by the concept of a `computer-elite', so long as
access to computers and computer-controlled devices is not limited to that
group.  After all, we live in an age of specialists.  I am more upset by the
`computer-utopians' who see computers as something more than tools, and hold
out false hopes of using them to solve all of the world's problems.

We who work with computers must help others to put them in perspective.  We
must warn people about those who, like the `Star-Wars' advocates, propose
technological solutions to fundamentally human problems such as illiteracy and
war.

I apologize for the length of this article, but I didn't have enough time to
write a shorter one.  I also apologize to Dave Taylor if I've misinterpreted
his views.

Bruce A. Sesnovich         sesnovich%dgloki.uucp@wjh12.harvard.edu