当电脑与飞机"杂交"时,会得到什么?What Do You Get When You Cross a Computer w

ehxz

What Do You Get When You Cross a Computer with an Airplane?

1.In December 1995, American Airlines Flight 965 departed from Miami on a regularly scheduled trip to Cali, Columbia. On the landing approach, the pilot of the 757 needed to select the next radio-navigation fix, named "ROZO." He entered an "R" into his navigation computer. The computer returned a list of nearby navigation fixes starting with "R," and the pilot selected the first of these, whose latitude and longitude appeared to be correct. Unfortunately, instead of "ROZO," the pilot selected "ROMEO," 132 miles to the northeast. The jet was southbound, descending into a valley that runs north–south, and any lateral deviation was dangerous. Following indications on the flight computer, the pilot began an easterly turn and slammed into a granite peak at 10,000 feet. One hundred and fifty-two passengers and all eight crewmembers aboard perished. Four passengers survived with serious injuries. The National Transportation Safety Board investigated, and—as usual—declared the problem human error. The navigational aid the pilot was following was valid, but not for the landing procedure at Cali. In the literal definition of the phrase, this was indeed human error, because the pilot selected the wrong fix. However, in the larger picture, it wasn't the pilot's fault at all.

The front panel of the airplane's navigation computer showed the currently selected navigation fix and a course-deviation indicator. When the plane is on course, the needle is centered, but the needle gives no indication whatsoever about the correctness of the selected radio beacon. The gauge looks pretty much the same just before landing as it does just before crashing. The computer told the pilot he was tracking precisely to the beacon he had selected. Unfortunately, it neglected to tell him the beacon he selected was a fatal choice.

2.Communications can be precise and exacting while still being tragically wrong. This happens all too frequently when we communicate with computers, and computers are invading every aspect of our modern lives. From the planes we fly to just about every consumer product and service, computers are ubiquitous, and so is their characteristically poor way of communicating and behaving.

3.There is a widely told joke in the computer industry that goes like this: A man is flying in a small airplane and is lost in the clouds. He descends until he spots an office building and yells to a man in an open window, "Where am I?" The man replies, "You are in an airplane about 100 feet above the ground." The pilot immediately turns to the proper course, spots the airport, and lands. His astonished passenger asks how the pilot figured out which way to go. The pilot replies, "The answer the man gave me was completely correct and factual, yet it was no help whatsoever, so I knew immediately he was a software engineer who worked for Microsoft, and I know where Microsoft's building is in relation to the airport."

4.When seen in the light of the tragedy of Flight 965, the humor of the joke is macabre, yet professionals in the digital world tell it gleefully and frequently because it highlights a fundamental truth about computers: They may tell us facts, but they don't inform us. They may guide us with precision, but they don't guide us where we want to go. The flight computer on Flight 965 could easily have told the pilots that "ROMEO" was not an appropriate fix for their approach to Cali. Even a simple hint that it was "unusual" or "unfamiliar" could have saved the airplane. Instead, it seemed as though the computer was utterly unconcerned with the actual flight and its passengers. It cared only about its own internal computations.

5.Hard-to-use computers affect us all, sometimes fatally. Software-based products are not inherently hard to use; they are that way because we use the wrong process for creating them. In this book, I intend to reveal this bad process by showing its effect and describing its cause. I'll then show how to change the process so that our software-based products become friendly, powerful, and desirable. First, I'll use this chapter to show how serious this problem really is.

当电脑与飞机"杂交"时,会得到什么?????????

1.1995年12月，美国航空965次航班从迈阿密出发飞往哥伦比亚的卡利。在降落的过程中，757飞机的飞行员需要使用无线电导航仪选择下一个定位坐标，名字为"ROZO"。他输入了一个"R"，计算机返回了一个周围附近的以R开头的地点列表，随后飞行员选择了第一个经纬度看起来是正确的那个。不幸的是，飞行员选中的不是"ROZO"而是"ROMEO"。ROMEO在ROZO偏北132英里处。飞机正在下降至一个南北走向的山谷里，任何侧向的偏差都是极其危险的。按照飞机上电脑的指示，飞行员开始调转机头朝东撞向一个10000英尺高的山头。飞机上152名乘客和所有8名机组人员全部遇难。虽然有4名乘客生还，但是身受重伤。NTSB国家运输安全局在经过调查后，把事件起因归为人员操作失误。飞行员遵守的指示是没有错的，只不过这个指示不是用来在卡利降落而已。从纸面上的定义上来看，这起事故的确是人员操作失误，因为飞行员选错了坐标。然而事实上，这根本不是飞行员的错。

飞机导航仪的前部面板显示了当前选中的导航坐标和路线偏移指示器。如果飞机在预定航线上，指针指向正中。但是指针并不会提示指向的信号站是不是正确。飞机降落前同坠毁前的仪表显示看上去几乎一样。计算机只告诉飞行员，飞机正在飞往他指定的地方，然而却没有告诉飞行员，他选的地方完全是个致命的错误。

2.交流时候的信息可以非常的精确，但同时却错的离谱。当我们在使用计算机的时候，这种现象尤其严重，更为可怕的是，计算机正在慢慢进入到我们生活的每一个角落。从我们飞行时搭载的飞机到日常使用的每一样产品和服务，计算机及其独有且糟糕的交互行为一起占据着重要的位置。

3.计算机行业中有一个著名的笑话，一个人驾驶着一架小型飞机迷失在云层中，当他降落下来后发现一幢办公室，于是他朝着窗口里的一个男人问到，“请问，我在哪儿？”，那个男人回答到，“你在一架大约100英尺高的飞机上”，飞行员马上调头，飞向正确的航线。他的乘客们很是惊奇，纷纷问他是如何知道正确方向的，飞行员的回答是“那个人回答的虽然完全正确无误，但是却没有一丁点的帮助，所以我立刻就醒悟过来，他一定是一个工作在微软的工程师。我也知道从微软的办公室如何飞能抵达我们的机场” 。

4.联想起965次航班那次惨剧，这个笑话就有点可悲的意味了，虽然电子世界里的工程师每次讲起这个笑话都觉得很好笑，因为它道出了计算机的一个本质，计算机也许会说实话，但是仅此而已，他们不会分析一下事实后才告诉人们。也许他们告诉我们的话很精确，但是他们却不告诉我们该何去何从。965次航班上的导航仪本可以很容易的告诉飞行员“ROMEO”不是他们去Cali的目标。即使做不到这样，也可以简单的提示那个坐标“不寻常”或者“不常用”，这样也可以救了大家的命。然而可惜的是，似乎计算机并不在意航班和乘客的安全，他只专注于自己内部的运算。

5.难于操作的计算机正在跟我们大部分人作对，有些甚至是致命的。软件产品并不是天生就那么难用的，他们会发展成现在这样完全是因为我们使用了错误的方式来创造他们。在这本书里，我将试图展示他们造成后果和起因，然后我会说明如何做才能让我们所制造的软件更加人性化，更加强大和令人向往。