Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
SYNOPSIS OF GENERAL AUDIENCE DISCUSSION Two general points wale raise] from the floor. 1. When discussing natural language ~nterfa~-= for human-computer interaction, one should make a clear separation between those requiring a~;tory input and those accepting natural language. Although these two features are highly correlated, they need not be. One could consider a speech input that would restrict language to a subset, such as single word oo=mands or even special codes. Similarly, there could be natural language input that was entered via keyboard. Although there is an additional memory load Em posed on the user if speech input accepted only a subset of natural language, there may be some applications that could effectively use this mode. . , 2. Allen Newell wished to emphasize the importance of having specific, detailed cognitive models as the basis for design ng human-computer interfaces. m e current researchers who using this approach is very small, and though growing exponentially, the growth rate is very "leisurely." The ad roach has the advantage of not only specifying details of the processing mechanisms of cognition and their interaction, but also of specifying the details of the task the user is engaged in. Having the details of the took ~ ~ provide benefits beyond redesign of the interface. key could serve as the basis f ~ u which the task itself could be redesigned, affording prcUuctivity enhancements from a straightforward efficiency analysis. Newell recommended a strong incentive be established for researchers to conduct their work in the context of cumulative, model-based theories of cognition, and let the design principles fall from them. 208
