Found the following while slogging through google results for a
search on "pointy sticks" (see The Pointy Stick Compendium Project)
While it was on a web site devoted to web site design, the phrase
"cognitive friction" seems applicable to many woodworking tools
and woodworking methods developed for power tools. Making
dovetails with a router, dovetail bit and a jig like the Akeda or
Leigh involve a high degree of cogniative friction. Hanductting
them is a low cognitative friction process.
I also like the last line in this excerpt - if things don't work
IT'S YOUR FAULT.
"Cognitive friction
Interaction design guru Alan Cooper (www.cooper.com) defined this term
to describe the mental stretch caused when tools behave in a way that
seems unrelated to what you wanted. I find it extremely helpful in
illustrating the ever-present anxiety of being a normal web user.
[Editors note - the term web user can be replaced by woodworking
tool user]
Note: Alan describes this much better in his excellent book "The Inmates
are Running the Asylum". Please buy it.
In times gone by, using a tool to do something was a simple affair. e.g.
Gather friends > take sticks > make stick pointy > poke mammoth with
sticks > repeat until mammoth falls over. The pointy stick is very low
in cognitive friction: its purpose and form are directly related. Even
if you'd never used a pointy stick before, you could imagine how you
could use it simply by looking at it or handling it. If you stick
yourself in the leg with it, you understood why you'd been stuck in the
leg, and you would learn how to avoid getting stuck in the leg again.
Todays' tools are generally high in cognitive friction: their form and
purpose are more often unrelated.
(snip)
Another effect you notice with cognitive friction is: if something
doesn't work, you're made to think it's your fault."
Just something to think about - or not.
charlie b
TWS wrote:
> If I understand the definition of Cognitive Friction correctly then,
> for me, this term applies even more so to handcut dovetails. In this
> case the outcome should be obvious and easy to achieve - the tools are
> simple and the function they serve obvious right? But the outcome is
> never what I had intended or imagined in the first place. The
> seemingly lack of correlation between results and intended results is
> extremely high - hence a high Cognitive Friction coefficient. Did I
> understand the term correctly?
I think you're talking about "doing friction" - I know WHAT and
WHY I WANT my hand to cause the saw it's holding to cut on THIS
side of the line BUT the eye-hand-saw coordination isn't there
yet.
You CAN handcut dovetails that fit together - but they
probablywon't
fit nice and clean and snug AND look nice. That comes with
practice.
But the concept/ process of handcutting dovetails, especially if
you
have one you can physically hold, take apart and examine, is pretty
straight foreward. Saw and pare "to the line" - the "line" assumed
to be where it's suppose to be (good layout).
>
> I like Charlie B's corollary #1:
>
> >"if something
> >doesn't work, you're made to think it's your fault."
> >
> as it applies directly related to the complexity (real or marketed) of
> the tool.
That wasn't my corollary - came with the article. I will add
a closer to home observation - men/women interaction.
My first wife had a sign on the refridgerator that read
"I know you think you know what I said
but what I said
ISN'T what I meant"
Her mother AND grandmother had the identical sign on
their refridgerators.
An example:
The question asked is "Should I wear dress A or dress B?"
The question to be answered "I like dress B and want you
to support my choice and thus affirm/acknowledge my ability
to make good decisions."
The cognitive friction in this example is extremely high.
Despite the apparent 50-50 odds, the actual odds are
more like 90-10, 90% chance of guessing wrong.
charlie b
Interesting concept. Thanks for posting. Cognitive friction is why
I cut my dovetails with hand tools. If I was getting paid and
cutting a lot of dovetails I would make the mental investment to
figure them out, but I'm not paid and I only cut dovetails every now
and then. I'd have to reclimb the learning curve every darn time.
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 21:31:44 -0800, charlie b <[email protected]>
wrote:
><snip> Hanductting
>them [dovetails] is a low cognitative friction process.
>
If I understand the definition of Cognitive Friction correctly then,
for me, this term applies even more so to handcut dovetails. In this
case the outcome should be obvious and easy to achieve - the tools are
simple and the function they serve obvious right? But the outcome is
never what I had intended or imagined in the first place. The
seemingly lack of correlation between results and intended results is
extremely high - hence a high Cognitive Friction coefficient. Did I
understand the term correctly?
>I also like the last line in this excerpt - if things don't work
>IT'S YOUR FAULT.
>
I like Charlie B's corollary #1:
>"if something
>doesn't work, you're made to think it's your fault."
>
as it applies directly related to the complexity (real or marketed) of
the tool.
TWS
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 21:31:44 -0800, the inscrutable charlie b
<[email protected]> spake:
>Found the following while slogging through google results for a
>search on "pointy sticks" (see The Pointy Stick Compendium Project)
>While it was on a web site devoted to web site design, the phrase
>"cognitive friction" seems applicable to many woodworking tools
>and woodworking methods developed for power tools. Making
>dovetails with a router, dovetail bit and a jig like the Akeda or
>Leigh involve a high degree of cogniative friction. Hanductting
>them is a low cognitative friction process.
"What abotu typoing?" he grinned.
>Note: Alan describes this much better in his excellent book "The Inmates
>are Running the Asylum". Please buy it.
The Normite/Neander duality factor incarnate?
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0672316498/qid=1110121022/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/104-4750393-3495137>
>In times gone by, using a tool to do something was a simple affair. e.g.
>Gather friends > take sticks > make stick pointy > poke mammoth with
>sticks > repeat until mammoth falls over. The pointy stick is very low
>in cognitive friction: its purpose and form are directly related. Even
>if you'd never used a pointy stick before, you could imagine how you
>could use it simply by looking at it or handling it. If you stick
>yourself in the leg with it, you understood why you'd been stuck in the
>leg, and you would learn how to avoid getting stuck in the leg again.
One would hope, at least.
>Todays' tools are generally high in cognitive friction: their form and
>purpose are more often unrelated.
> (snip)
>Another effect you notice with cognitive friction is: if something
>doesn't work, you're made to think it's your fault."
Say, like sanding through the veneer with a belt sandah?
>Just something to think about - or not.
Question of the decade:
Why is staining and polying wood so bloody low in cognitive friction
for so -many- people?
==========================================================
Save the ||| http://diversify.com
Endangered SKEETS! ||| Web Application Programming
==========================================================