The Question:
Without looking now, describe what the underside of your mouse looks like.
The Reason:
Simply because someone who tends to be sloppy in his assertions and proclamations made the astonishing statement that, "probably 90% of people never turn the [computer mouse] over, ever. they probably don't even know there's a ball under there."
I'm curious enough to find out who, among a sampling of people who qualify as a decent cross-section of Americana, have no clue what their mouse looks like. I worded the question somewhat ambiguously. Two respondents qualified their answers by saying something along the lines of "I assume you mean computer mouse, and not a furry little rodent."
The polled:
Sixty peeps, a cross section of those in my address book plus some real life peeps I encountered today. I discounted those I know to be in the electronics/computing/engineering fields, those who are presently active participants in misc.writing.
So far, I've had twelve responses. Stay tuned.
[21 Sep 2003]
With 36% of those polled so far responding, we have 10% who have never looked at the underside of their mouse and who have no clue how it works, nor do they care. When asked further what they do when their mouse doesn't work right, they said, "I let (name of family member who does their computer stuff) take care of all that."
That means, so far, 90% of those polled know what the underside of their mouse looks like.
50% of that 90% went one step more in their response, although they weren't asked to, and told me in great detail about their pointing device. Those who use mouses with a ball beneath it told me they have had to take the ball out, clean off the ball, clean the rollers, and swab it out with rubbing alcohol several times a year. One person mentioned that the underside of his mouse looks like the top side of his cat, so he figured it was time to clean the mouse again
Stay tuned ...
[22 Sep 2003]
Total polled 59
Total responses to date: 25 (42% response rate)
Total "No Clue": 2 (8%)
Other stats:
Ball: 10 (40%)
Optical: 7 (28%)
Touchpad: 1 (4%)
Stick: 0 (0%)
Trackball: 4 (16%)
I received the poll question in email. Apparently as a courtesy, since I'm the so-called "sloppy assertion" maker referred to here.
Heh. What absolute irony.
Anyway...
After reading the the poll question in question, it's clear that it's thoroughly flawed and skewed to get the results that the poller wants.
Firstly, it's flawed because of the original "sloppy assertions" made by the poller in question in regards to the original issue at hand.
That's one thing.
But, it's even flawed for the thing for which it is testing. However, I'm still interested in seeing the results of this flawed poll.
You'll note that the poller asked a leading question along the lines of:
"describe what's underneath your mouse without looking"
The reasons that such a question is flawed are:
1] It doesn't test for the original issue regarding "flawed" metaphors.
See also: usenet posts in misc.writing appropriately entitled:
"pointless struggling"
2] It doesn't adequately test for the new question of interest
(a/k/a: "moving the goalposts").
By asking the pollee to "describe what's underneath," it causes the pollee to use their analytical facilities to try to imagine what's there. They may then move the mouse around (without ever turnning it over) in an attempt to ascertain how it works.
This does not answer the original issue at all, but it also doesn't answer the new goalpost-moving issue either.
Instead, it answers this question:
"Can you figure out how your mouse works?"
That's a different question all together.
Also, the nature of the flawed poll question tends to bring the pollee's ego into their answer, not wishing to appear stupid, for instance. This can seriously skew any results.
A much less sloppy way to pose the poll question would have been:
"Have you ever looked under your mouse to see how it works?"
YES or NO?
Though, that too might trigger ego issues.
To answer the original issue: whether or not many many people pointlessly struggle with the screen-glitchy consequences of a dirty mouse because they don't know enough about how it works to be able to remove a tiny piece of dust in its mechanism (or suffer from a complete lack of curiosity), it would be best to test that question by doing the following:
1] Placing a slightly dirtily-impaired
mouse on someone's computer
2] Observe them for a couple hours
to see how they deal with it.
3] Then question them about it.
4] Repeat for cross-section of people
Granted, that method may be impractical, but it's the best test for the original "pointlessly struggling" metaphor question.
Of course, doing the same thing also tests for the new goalpost, as well.
However, if one were forced by issues of practicality to simply pose a question, if you wanted to see whether the following is reasonably true:
"probably 90% of people never turn the
[computer mouse] over, ever. they probably
don't even know there's a ball under there."
This would be a better way to pose the question:
"Will you do me a favor? Without touching your
mouse, please answer the following questions.
Firstly, isn't it neat how you can move the
mouse on your mousepad and it makes the pointer
on the screen move around? YES or NO?
Did you know that there is a very lightweight
magnet inside your mouse which the computer can
sense as you move your mouse around your mousepad?
YES or NO?
There are no moving parts. Isn't that cool?
YES or NO?
It's always been like that. Did you know this?
YES or NO?
Please let me know YES or NO for a poll I'm taking."
Or something to that effect.
THAT would test for the goalpost in question.
Why?
Because it doesn't lead the pollee to the answer if they don't already know the answer.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
-$Zero... WhenLookingFor... TheReasonableTruth... PollThis...
+++
Making Friends Is
Much Better Than
Making Enemies
Brevity is the soul of wit, Long-Winded Boy. I hope you didn't intend for me to read that entire lengthy and undoubtedly boring comment. I'll leave this draaaaawwwwnnnn out entry stay, but if you get this wordy next time, I'll be editing your comments down to the bare essentials. You've been warned.