Engelbart, technology prophet
Sputnik, a Soviet communication satellite, was launched in 1957. If a climatic pivotal poinnt could be identified in the Cold War between United States and the Soviet Union, perhaps this was it. The Soviet Union won the race to space, this sparked an immediate and commanding response from the United States. Oddly enough, the response was not one to build more arms as what was perhaps expected. But the response to this new Soviet threat was to invest heavily and immediately in technology. In particular, the development of computer and communications technology.
The article titled “Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework” by Douglas Engelbert was written in 1962. The news reels must have been buzzing with the news that the US federal government was enacting legislation to boost research and development into science and technology.
Engelbert, I believe, I writing about the symbiosis between humans and computers. Human cognition, Engelbert describes a process where lower level functions are combined to give higher level functions. Then those higher level functions are combined and organized to give even high level functions and so forth. Engelbert later describes that this is the same process that is used in computer science and programming.
As a programming teacher, and someone who studied comp-sci in the 90’s, I can relate to Engelberts description. To accomplish the higher order task of brushing my teeth, I combine lower order functions and the functions of various objects such as a toothbrush, cup and toothpaste. Below that level of functionality, I subconsciously combine various motor skills to accomplish the physical action. Computer programming the same thing. Low level programers write functions that can be combined to accomplish higher level functionality. This higher level functionality combines to create even higher level. So being a programmer is basically using and combining the functions that lower level programmers have coded for you.
Moving on, I feel that Engelbert predicted many of the technology devices that we use today. The “Memex” he describes sounds remarkably similar to a microfiche system which may have existed i 1962. However the desire to archive data and have it shared collaboratively sounds remarkably similar to a SQL style database. “A special button tranfers him immediately to the first page of the index” (32), could he be referring to the home button on an Android or the only button on the iPad? The physician “puzzled by its patient’s reactions” uses technology to browse through all possible cases – knowledge society or internet? “A number of idividual users connect to the same computer” (44) – a server? The movable “light pen” (50), a mouse? “Inter-communication via their computer or computers” (65), networking? “Flexible cooperation with the computer…”, Google Docs?
You have done a good job, Daniel, of summarizing Englebart’s thoughts that the foundation for all of our technologies are all rooted back to the basic rudiments. It is imperative that these rudiments, while seemingly simple, are thoroughly thought out and strong. This reminds me of a simple analogy to a building. An architect can design the most incredible high rise, but it is up to the engineer and the construction crew to ensure that the foundation is strong enough to carry the load. Otherwise the entire structure will crumble. How often have we seen that with technology? Just as fast as new technology is presented, people are coming up with new uses and increased demands, thus leaving the programmers to restructure and make constant upgrades.
I like how you have connected Englebart’s predictions to current technologies. The Memex goes back even farther than Englebart. In his 1945 article “As We May Think”, Vannevar Bush describes his vision of the Memex as being a hypothetical hypertext type system. He wanted information to be stored on microfilm and a way for the ideas to be linked for quick retrieval (Bush, 1945). I find it absolutely fascinating that people had these incredible ideas back in a time when so many of our current basic technologies were not even in the prototype stages. Yet here we are, now immersed in information and technology, and there are still so many people who remain in the infancy stages of its use.
We must certainly be thankful for the forward, innovative thinking of people such as Englebart and Bush, as they certainly helped to cut down the trees that developed into a path and became the information highway.
References:
Bush, V. (1945). . “As We May Think.”
Englebart, D. (1962). Augmenting human intellect; a conceptual approach.
Tina, I too was quite shocked to read the “memex” dated back 20 years prior to Englebart’s article! To be quite honest, I was also a little surprised not to see a reference to Bush’s article. What is particularly interesting is how much more detailed Englebart was 20 years after Bush’s article. Its quite shocking how close he was to our current technology.
As you mentioned Tina, there are a lot of users that are “stuck” in the infancy stages of technology use are you mentioned. As a technology manager, I question the need each time Microsoft releases a new version of Microsoft Office. With each new version I deploy, I assure you that the faculty are using the same documents and spreadsheets they have been editing for the last 20 years. If anything, the new releases confuses them. Remember when we moved from Office XP to Office 2007? When they got rid of the menu items in favour of “strip” menus? You have no idea how much grief that has caused me!
Well the future will be an interesting one. The incoming faculty, especially the science and math teachers are hungry for technology. They are asking for it at an increasing rate.