Re: levels of expertise on software usage
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 07:08:18AM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> >according to Craig A. Finseth, and Emacs fan, whose thesis on text editing
> >technology was regarded as the authority in the field
^^^
What is regarded as the authority in the field now?
> """Novice users have used a computer before, perhaps for text editing,
> word processing, spread sheet, or database applications. In any event,
[..]
> Basic users are like novice users, only more so. They understand such
> programming concepts as thread of control, variables, and statements
> like "A = A + 1" (in fact, many people call such users "programmers").
> These users can operate any program, even one with a poor design.
Must have been written before GUI's came out.
No mention of lusers or cluebies(sp?)?
> on debian lists, I come across 3 classifications:
> * newbies
> * intermediate
> * experts
That's a bit broad. How about:
* Aunt Tilly
* luser/clubie
* novice/newbie
* beginner
* intermediate
* Advanced
* Expert
* Wizard
Aunt Tilly -- someone who hasn't used/seen a computer.
luser/cluebie -- Can't programme TV/Video etc even with the manual.
Although you may see him/her moving the mouse round and clicking things
in Windows. Some even know how to email, as long as it is no more
complicated than click ... click ... type ... click.
novice/newbie -- Can programme TV/Video. Just starting on computers.
beginner -- Just starting to understand the terminology, and using
software.
intermediate -- Understands most of the terminology. Can use most of the
software for standard tasks. Understands basic error messages and why
they occur.
Advanced -- Understands nearly all of the terminology. Can use most of
the software for Advanced tasks. Can "sort" out most error messages.
Expert -- Understands all of the terminology. Writes software for
advanced tasks.
Wizard -- Can programme TV/Video/Computer etc without the manual.
Note that someone may be advanced at one thing while being a beginner at
another.
--
Chris.
======
" ... the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of
rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government
conspiracy of `X-Files' proportions and insidiousness."
Letter to the LA Times Magazine, September 18, 2005.
Reply to: