In a message dated 2001-09-27 8:01:38 AM, bparsia at email.unc.edu writes:

>On Wed, 26 Sep 2001 Fleeberz at aol.com wrote:
>
>> In a message dated 2001-09-26 7:15:47 PM, gafisher at sprynet.com writes:
>> 
>> >The implication that there was something bad in the interface
>> >because it was intuitive after second or third attempt strikes
>> >me as the comment of someone who doesn't want to take chances,
>> >but taking chances is the foundation of most learning.
>> 
>> As is often said, the only intuitive interface is the nipple; everything
>> else is learned.
>[snip]
>
>And when one says it, one is saying something that is (likely) false, or
>at least misleading, about the nipple.
>
>Many babies need some assistance and guidance with latching on. They have
>reflexes, of course, and there's an amazing feedback loop.

Predictably, my incredible stupidity is showing once again; thank you Bijan 
for pointing this out. Without a thought in my head I mistakenly regarded 
"interface" in the sense of "facilitator." Admitting my tiny vocabulary and 
inability to reason soundly, yet wishing however to share this bizarre 
concept with you, please allow me to attempt an explanation using small 
thoughts and small words ...

Interface -> That which "interfaces" (which "connects" or facilitates 
"connection")
In a "human" or "cognitive" sense, the interface must be recognized, or 
apprehended by some sense in order to be utilized; in a mechanical/physical 
sense (usually under the control of an intelligent agent), the "connecting 
part" needs to find favorable alignment and physical contact with the "parts 
being connected" in order for the "connection" to take place.
I believe, likely foolishly, that babies (human or not) are born with minimal 
visual means, yet with substantial tactile ability.
The nipple, as an interface, works quite well, *intuitively*, when it is 
apprehended (noticed) by the baby, usually this apprehension is facilitated 
by allowing/encouraging/facilitating contact between the baby's mouth part 
and the nipple part. Note that an ear, paw or finger may temporarily induce 
the same reaction in the baby as "discovering" a nipple; the lack of milk 
present in these parts, however, leads to frustration on the baby's part and 
a search (wiggle, whatever possible at this stage) for a better 
representation of the intuitively-defined-to-exist object.

The story told here recently of a deployed application seeming "broken" due 
to an unfamiliar interface comes to mind. The "intuitiveness" which was 
lacking may not have been a genetic expectation, yet there was "intuition" 
involved, and no "interface" was available to apply it to.

If a world menu is displayed on a monitor and there is no one present in the 
room to see it, is it an interface? I say no, it's not, until someone sees it 
AND recognizes its potential/actual meaning.

The nipple is an intuitively obvious interface - that says nothing whatsoever 
about how, when or if the interface will be utilized.

Babies do not need to "acquire" training in making a nipple work, but they DO 
need to be close enough to the darned thing to make any sense of it.

I'll shut up now, as it's probably not much fun for anyone to witness 
firsthand anyone's complete mental breakdown, but before so doing I would 
like to further add that you (Bijan) have raised valid points, just points I 
happen to disagree with when it comes to nipples. Thank you for your valiant 
attempt to set me straight; it's a shame I'm too stupid to see it your way.

--Flee