HCI Prior to Personal Computing (1965–1980) (2 of 7)

Podcast

---

Central Problem

How did the pre-personal computing era (1965–1980) shape the distinct trajectories of Human-Computer Interaction, and why did fields that seemed logically related—AI and HCI—develop such different relationships to actual users? Grudin traces the emergence of multiple HCI-related disciplines in this period, each tied to different computing platforms, user populations, and institutional contexts.

The central tension lies between visionary predictions of intelligent machines that would render user interface concerns trivial, and the practical reality of expensive, limited computers requiring careful attention to human factors. While AI researchers promised machines would achieve human-level intelligence “within a decade,” HCI researchers focused on the mundane but essential work of making existing systems usable. This divergence had lasting consequences: funds and talented students gravitated toward AI, while HCI remained underfunded and undervalued.

Main Thesis

Grudin advances several interconnected arguments about HCI’s development in the pre-personal computing era:

1. Three Distinct HCI Research Streams: The three computing roles—operation, management, and programming—each generated distinct research traditions. Human factors and ergonomics (HF&E) focused on operators and data entry personnel, addressing efficiency, error reduction, and physical workspace design. Management Information Systems (MIS) addressed managers who “used” computers through printed reports without direct interaction, emphasizing cognitive styles and organizational dynamics. Software psychology studied programmer behavior, with over 1,000 papers published in the 1960s-70s on programming performance variables.

2. Hardware Generations Determine Research Fields: Every decade brought a new platform two orders of magnitude smaller and an order of magnitude less expensive, yet more capable. Mainframes (1964) filled rooms; minicomputers (1971) filled cabinets; microcomputers (1980) sat on desks. Each platform was “delivered by companies that did not build the previous platform.” Research fields rose and fell with platforms: MIS reached its apogee with mainframes; CHI dominated with PCs. The insight that “the resource competition of that era is difficult to imagine today” explains why advanced work concentrated in a few centers.

3. The AI-HCI Divergence: AI and HCI are “logically closely related”—intelligent machines should interact with people—yet AI did not transform HCI. Hyperbolic predictions (“within 20 years, machines will do any work that a man can do”) attracted funding and students, leaving HCI undervalued. The pattern of “AI winters” following failed predictions recurred: optimism in the late 1960s, ARPA cuts in 1975, the British Lighthill report in 1973. Ironically, HCI thrived during AI downturns: Sutherland’s Sketchpad consumed TX-2 cycles when Lincoln Lab allowed it during AI’s first disappointment.

4. The Xerox PARC Divergence: Two research centers founded in 1970—HUSAT at Loughborough and Xerox PARC—took different paths. HUSAT focused on ergonomics “anchored in the tradition of nondiscretionary use.” PARC focused on computing “anchored in visions of discretionary use.” PARC researchers, influenced by cognitive psychology, extended human factors to higher-level mental processes. HUSAT, influenced by sociotechnical design, extended human factors to organizational factors. Computer graphics researchers at PARC faced a choice: high-end graphics or “more primitive features that could run on widely affordable machines.” Those who chose interaction—Newman, Baecker, Foley—became HCI pioneers.

5. Sociotechnical and Participatory Approaches: Enid Mumford and others developed sociotechnical approaches to system design in response to user difficulties and resistance, involving representative workers in design to increase acceptance. Kristin Nygaard’s cooperative design from Scandinavian trade unions focused on “empowering future hands-on users.” Sophisticated views of social dynamics around system adoption emerged from Rob Kling and Lynne Markus.

Historical Context

Business computing took off with mainframes in the late 1960s. IBM System/360 (1965) established computing in the business realm. The high cost of hardware generated intense interest in efficiency—a hallmark of human factors since Taylor and the Gilbreths. Brian Shackel founded HUSAT in 1970; James Martin’s Design of Man-Computer Dialogues (1973) was the first widely-read HCI book.

AI burst onto the scene with extravagant promises. Minsky in 1970 predicted “a machine with the general intelligence of an average human being” in “three to eight years.” The Cuban missile crisis of 1962 and Cold War anxieties made machine saviors appealing; competition with the USSR (their chess machine defeated Stanford/MIT’s in 1968) drove funding. ARPA sponsored extensive AI research, but disappointment with progress led to funding cuts in 1975. The British Lighthill report (1973) cut government AI funding in the UK.

Information science evolved from documentalism. The term dates to 1960; by 1968, ADI became ASIS. Library schools added “information” to their titles throughout the 1970s. Pittsburgh’s information science Ph.D. (1970) declared humans “the central factor in the development of an understanding of information phenomena.”

The geographic shift westward began in the 1960s. Evans and Sutherland’s Utah students—Kay, Newman, Lampson—went to California, founding key companies. Engelbart at SRI and Xerox PARC attracted graphics researchers. When microcomputers arrived, Bay Area hobbyists were ready.

Philosophical Lineage

flowchart TD
    Taylor --> HumanFactors[Human Factors]
    Gilbreths --> HumanFactors
    HumanFactors --> Shackel
    Shackel --> HUSAT
    Licklider --> PARC
    Engelbart --> PARC
    Sutherland --> PARC
    PARC --> Kay
    PARC --> Newman
    Mumford --> Sociotechnical[Sociotechnical Design]
    Nygaard --> ParticipatoryDesign[Participatory Design]
    Turing --> AI
    McCarthy --> AI
    Minsky --> AI
    Newell --> AI
    Simon --> AI
    
    class Taylor,Gilbreths,Shackel,Licklider,Engelbart,Sutherland,Kay,Newman,Mumford,Nygaard,Turing,McCarthy,Minsky,Newell,Simon internal-link;

Key Thinkers

Thinker	Dates	Movement	Main Work	Core Concept
Shackel	1927-2007	Human Factors	HUSAT (1970)	Computer ergonomics
Martin	1933-2013	Information Systems	Design of Man-Computer Dialogues (1973)	Operator-centered design
Minsky	1927-2016	Artificial Intelligence	MIT AI Lab	Strong AI predictions
Negroponte	1943-	Media Studies	Architecture Machine Group	Intelligent environments
Mumford	1924-2006	Sociotechnical Design	ETHICS methodology	Worker participation
Nygaard	1926-2002	Participatory Design	Scandinavian approach	User empowerment

Key Concepts

Concept	Definition	Related to
AI winter	Period of reduced funding and interest following failed predictions about artificial intelligence	AI, Funding
Nondiscretionary use	Computer use required by job role; users have no choice whether to use system	Human Factors, HCI
Discretionary use	Computer use chosen by user; system must attract and retain users voluntarily	HCI, PARC
Hardware platform	Generation of computing hardware with characteristic size, cost, and capability	Computing History, HCI
Sociotechnical design	Approach involving workers in system design to address social and organizational factors	Mumford, Design
Participatory design	Design approach empowering future hands-on users through involvement in development	Nygaard, Scandinavian
Cognitive styles	Individual differences in how people perceive and process information; MIS research focus	MIS, Psychology
Software psychology	Study of programmer behavior and factors affecting programming performance	Weinberg, Shneiderman
Information science	Discipline combining behavioral science and technical grounding for information management	Library Science, Computing
Christensen’s dilemma	Pattern where new platforms are delivered by companies that did not build previous platform	Innovation, Markets

Authors Comparison

Theme	Grudin	Minsky	Licklider
AI timeline	Skeptical; documents failed predictions	Optimistic; “3-8 years” to human-level AI	Uncertain; “10 to 500 years”
HCI value	Central to computing’s future	Trivial; ultra-intelligence will solve it	Important until AI arrives
Human role	Users as partners; diverse needs	Users replaced by intelligent machines	Symbiosis between human and machine
Funding priorities	Critiques AI’s dominance	Sought maximum AI funding	Funded both AI and HCI
Research approach	Historical, empirical	Theoretical, mathematical	Visionary, pragmatic

Influences & Connections

• Predecessors: HF&E ← influenced by ← Taylor, Gilbreths (scientific management)
• Contemporaries: Mumford ↔ sociotechnical with ↔ Nygaard (participatory design)
• Institutional shifts: MIT Lincoln Lab → BBN → ARPA → Xerox PARC → Silicon Valley
• Followers: PARC → influenced → Apple Macintosh, Microsoft Windows
• Opposing views: Minsky, McCarthy (AI) ← tension with ← HCI research priorities

Summary Formulas

• Grudin on platforms: Every decade brought a new platform two orders of magnitude smaller, an order of magnitude less expensive, yet more capable; research fields rose and fell with these platforms.

• Grudin on AI-HCI divergence: Funds and good students gravitated to AI; an ultra-intelligent machine would clean up all user interfaces, so why focus on such trivialities?

• Martin on transition: “The terminal operator, instead of being a peripheral consideration, will become the tail that wags the whole dog… The computer industry will be forced to become increasingly concerned with the usage of people.”

• Licklider on graphics: “Interactive computer graphics appears likely to be one of the main forces that will bring computers directly into the lives of very large numbers of people during the next two or three decades.”

Timeline

Year	Event
1964	Control Data 6000 series; integrated circuits in mainframes
1965	IBM System/360; Utah computer science department founded
1967	Management Science initiates “Information Systems” column
1968	MIS center at University of Minnesota; ADI becomes ASIS
1969	International Journal of Man-Machine Studies begins; ARPANET debuts
1970	Xerox PARC founded; HUSAT founded; Pittsburgh IS Ph.D. program
1971	Weinberg publishes The Psychology of Computer Programming; large-scale integration
1972	Computer Systems Technical Group (CSTG) formed
1973	Martin publishes Design of Man-Computer Dialogues; Xerox Alto; Lighthill report
1975	ARPA cuts AI funding; “Human Factors in Interactive Graphics” paper
1976	UODIGS’76 workshop at SIGGRAPH
1977	MIS Quarterly launched
1979	Three Mile Island disaster
1980	Shneiderman publishes Software Psychology; VLSI circuits enable microcomputers

Notable Quotes

“The terminal or console operator, instead of being a peripheral consideration, will become the tail that wags the whole dog… The computer industry will be forced to become increasingly concerned with the usage of people, rather than with the computer’s intestines.” — Martin

“In from three to eight years we will have a machine with the general intelligence of an average human being. I mean a machine that will be able to read Shakespeare, grease a car, play office politics, tell a joke, and have a fight.” — Minsky (1970)

“Interactive computer graphics appears likely to be one of the main forces that will bring computers directly into the lives of very large numbers of people during the next two or three decades.” — Licklider (1976)

---

Warning

This annotation was normalised using a large language model and may contain inaccuracies. These texts serve as preliminary study resources rather than exhaustive references.