Hacker News Reader

Comment by ktizo | Hacker News Reader

I thought you wanted the tester to slide their finger down the screen or something like that

So how does that level up with the instruction : don't move your fingers on the surface ? Please never try using any industrial machinery.

View on HN

I was also confused by the instruction. The wording "straight down" is generally used in the context of positioning on the screen, and not used to describe the action of placing your fingers on the screen. Since it never specifies where one should put the second finger, "straight down" is naturally interpreted as a position, not an action.

Might be we are all just stupid, but the best instructions are those that even stupid people can understand.

If your natural response to ambiguous instructions are "you're just too stupid", please stay away from designing any instructions for industrial machinery.

It isn't ambiguous in the slightest as it tells you not to move your fingers on the screen, so the only reasonable conclusion from this is that the direction down is from above the screen onto the surface, not laterally across the surface. And this instruction is part of the same statement, not divorced from it, so the context is perfectly clear unless you don't bother finish reading the sentence before deciding what it means.

Also, I was not meaning that the person reading was stupid, but that they were careless in their reading of the instruction, which is the sort of thing that can lead you to counting in base nine for the rest of your life, if applied to anything big and heavy that spins.

To me, a speaker of U.S. English, "straight down" implies movement, making the instructions confusing. A non-motive indication of position would be "straight below".

Of course it implies movement. You have to move your finger to touch the screen. If it said straight down and had no qualifier, then it would be confusing as then down could have two common meanings. However it does have a qualifier within the same statement that makes it extremely clear that the motion described is not a motion across the screen.

Humans don't parse language the way computers do. When they see a phrase commonly associated with movement the concept of movement will enter their minds, even if a precise analysis of the sentence does not indicate movement.

I am dumbfounded. Do you live in flatland? Take me to the roundest polygon you know, they might get this.

Analysis of the sentence does indicate movement, and that is because there is movement.

This is because your finger needs to move down to touch the screen.

There are more than two dimensions of motion when describing fingers.

And this does not change just because a screen is involved.

I would phrase it as "press into the screen with another finger" maybe. Common screen coordinates (to me) are left/right (x), up/down (y), and in/out (z). The instruction is trying to refer to the z coord, but using the common word for the y coord.

Or "Touch the blue rectangle with another finger, without moving the first".

It isn't ambiguous in the slightest as it tells you not to move your fingers on the screen

Heh, and that's exactly why it's ambiguous: the first part suggests movement; and the second commands against it.

so the only reasonable conclusion from this is...

You can make an educated guess at what's intended, but you're still guessing. What if "fingers" was a typo and "finger" was written in its place? You couldn't say for certain, and that would give an entirely different "reasonable" conclusion - all based on a typo.

And this instruction is part of the same statement

And it contradicts the first part of instruction.

Your concern is for my well-being is touching, but I really do take exception to your claim of careless reading being at fault. If you don't understand an instruction, sure, go back and check that you haven't missed a bit, but the best option afterwards is to seek further clarification. That's a good life rule, and I absolutely have no shame in asking when I don't understand something.

Plus, unlike guessing at "the only reasonable conclusion," I think this approach will lead to counting in base 10 for a while longer ;-)

> It isn't ambiguous in the slightest

Obviously it is ambiguous, as several commenters have indicated that they had other interpretations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com