TITLE: Independence Day Reading
AUTHOR: Eugene Wallingford
DATE: July 06, 2007 12:00 PM
DESC:
-----
BODY:
While watching a little Wimbledon on television the other day,
I read a couple of items on my daunting pile of papers to
read. Among the first was the
on-line excerpt
of Scott Rosenberg's recent book Dreaming in Code,
about the struggles of the team developing the open-source
"interpersonal information manager"
Chandler.
In the introduction, Rosenberg says about software:
Never in history have we depended so completely on a product
that so few know how to make well.
In context, the emphasis is on "know how to make well". He
was speaking of the software engineering problem, the
knowledge of how to make software. But my thoughts turned
immediately to what is perhaps a more important problem:
"so few". The world depends so much on computer software,
yet we can't seem to attract students to study computer
science or (for those who think that is unnecessary) to
want to learn how to make software. Many young people
think that the idea of making software is beyond them --
too hard. But most don't think much about programming
at all. Software is mundane, too ordinary. Where is the
excitement?
Later I was reading
Space for improvement,
on "re-engaging the public with the greatest adventure of
our time": space travel. Now space travel travel still
seems pretty cool to me, one of the great scientific
exercises of my lifetime, but polls show that most
Americans, while liking the idea in the abstract, don't
care all that much about space travel when it comes down
to small matters of paying the bills.
The focus of the article is on the shortcomings of how
NASA and others communicate the value and excitement of
space travel to the public. It identifies three problems.
The first is an "unrelenting positiveness" in PR, which
may keep risk-averse legislators happy but gives the
public the impression that space travel is routine. The
second is a lack of essential information from Mission
Control during launches and flights, information that
would allow the PR folks tell a more grounded story. But
author Bob Mahoney thinks that the third and most important
obstacle in the past past has been a presumption that has
run through NASA PR for many year's:
The presumption? That the public can't understand or
won't appreciate the deeper technical issues of spaceflight.
By assuming a disinterested and unintelligent public, PAO
[NASA's s Public Affairs Office] and the mainstream media
have missed out completely on letting the public share in
the true drama inherent in space exploration.
If you presume a disinterested and unintelligent public,
then you won't -- can't -- tell an authentic story. And
in the case of space travel, the authentic story, replete
with scientific details and human drama, might well snag
the attention of the voting public.
I can't claim that that software development is "the
greatest adventure of our time", but I think we in
computing can learn a couple of things from reading this
article. First, tell people the straight story. Trust
them to understand their world and to care about things
that matter. If the public needs to know more math and
science to understand,
teach them more.
Second, I think that we should tell this story not just
to adults, but to our children. The only way we can
expect students to want to learn how to make software
or to learn computer science is if they understand why
these things matter and if they believe that they can
contribute. Children are in some ways a tougher audience.
They still have big imaginations and so are looking for
dreams that can match their imagination, and they are
pretty savvy when it comes to recognizing counterfeit
stories.
-----