

The techie/non-techie divide #1: content versus metacontent - 3pt14159
https://lopsa.org/node/1566

======
dasil003
The content/meta-content concept is pretty forced. The reason we technies know
that something like Spotlight search must be creating "meta-content" (ie. an
index) is because we know through experience that grepping 100GB HD is not
going to be performant, so we know something must be going on under the hood.

I think the divide is simply that techies automatically think algorithmically
about how everything works. Everyone expects technology to work the way the
way they need for their use case, it's just that techies are quicker to think
about what is logically feasible or why it might not be working. We are
natural debuggers as well, so we rarely get stumped with technology for long.

There is also one other class of people... the technophobes, like my mother,
who is scared to do _anything_ with technology lest she accidentally sever her
email connection and erase all her data by double-clicking something she was
supposed to click or vice-versa.

~~~
roundsquare
I agree that thinking algorithmically about things is a part of what divides
techies from non-techies, but I think a part of that is what information an
algorithm has access too.

This is what I think the author is saying. With the TiVo example, techies know
that the only information available is 1) when the show was recorded and 2) if
there is some flag about saving on the show. Take that information, and we
quickly come up with the most natural algorithm (FIFO + check "save till"
date).

I don't think the TiVo example is a good example though. Here, the problem is
the data to use exists, but isn't being populated. The example with the
picture is better. Think about explaining how google images comes up with
pictures. Lots of people think its searching the contents of each image so
when you search for "Saddam Hussein" it comes back with pictures of him. In
reality, its searching what the author calls "meta data" and just doing it
extremely well.

------
jsm386
This quote is a great example of how to help friends and family with tech
issues w/o pissing them off in the process: _I've banished from my vocabulary
in dealing with users the question: "what did you expect to happen?" (intoned
inquisitively with stress on the word happen, not sarcastically with stress on
the last syllable of expect). Because what the user hears when you ask that
question is, "you disagree with the computer. The computer's right, you're
wrong. So 'fess up on your idiocy, and I'll have a nice laugh with my techie
friends later at your expense." Instead, I said to my friend, "oh, no!
Still... I bet there are some people out there who really love their Project
Runway reruns, and don't care for The Shield that much. How do you wish the
TiVo had worked differently?"_

~~~
roundsquare
Honestly, I think that is the best part of the article, much more important
than the divide he discusses. When trying to explain why something works the
way it does, say three things: 1) Some people might want it the way it works
now. 2) How should the technology know you want it this way. 3) Show how the
user can tell the technology what it wants.

------
drewcrawford
I'm not convinced of the premise either. A major tenet of computer theory is
that programs _are_ data. The distinction between "data" and "metadata" is
merely for human convenience, as is the distinction between "code" and
"resource".

If techies are the ones who accept this false dichotomy and non-techies are
the ones who don't, I'd say it's us who need to adjust our position, not the
other way around.

~~~
roundsquare
The distinction being made here is not technical but conceptual. Data is what
we care about, meta data is how we reference what we care about.

Really, the difference is between "data we can parse" and "data we can't parse
(quickly) or isn't even there." At least, thats what I think he means.

------
tdoggette
This is _a_ distinction, but _the_ distinction? I'm not convinced of the broad
applicability of the divide.

------
asciilifeform
The real fundamental divide is between those who can deal with multi-layered
abstractions and those who cannot.

"The Camel Has Two Humps":

<http://www.cs.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/>

~~~
adg
I found that paper really interesting, but didn't see multi-layered
abstractions mentioned at all. It just said people must be able to deal with
the "meaninglessness" of the syntax of computer programs.

Anyway, I'd love to read more about this if you have any more links to share.

------
gabrielroth
The TiVo story feels to me like a particularly egregious case of non-techie
misunderstanding. I'd be very surprised if any of my friends or family, even
the least technical among them, expected their TiVo to choose what to delete
according to their valuation of its content.

I can imagine someone not realizing TiVo will delete shows at all, and perhaps
expecting a 'Your TiVo is full!' warning, but it's hard to believe someone
complaining 'It deleted x when I would have preferred for it to delete y.'

