The ten or so others out there who have read this monster are probably experiencing a facial tic at my suggestion that it be required reading for all who design software. Its not a quick read, but its definately a page turner. I couldn't put it down.

I'm serious.

For me, a guy with a solid background in networking and systems architecture but without the classical human factors education required for intelligent product design this one document did a far better job of firmly rooting me in the basics than anything else.

Mad props to Norman and Neilsen for pointing me in this direction in the first place. But with this book I finally felt "full."

There were a solid list of findings I'd never heard of until I'd opened this book. Not only did this book introduce me to these sorts of things, it also illustrated them to me. I walked away understanding.

Like all of my other faves, this book is opened often. I've bought many copies for friends (with friends like me...) and I reference it often.

Its notable that the most leading edge work today related to this topic is being driven by the same guys who wrote this book so long ago. Its among my top five most suggested books for those I know who want to take their design to the next level.

Designing human-computer interfaces is still an art, learned best by creating many interfaces and carefully observing how real users interact with them. However, there are many tools from cognitive psychology that, if understood and applied, can yeild at least two benefits. First, by learning what is known about how humans operate, you can avoid many pitfalls in design. Second, you can make quantitative design decisions.

This book, though nearly 20 years old, contains much essential material that is unknown to many practitioners in the field! If you are designing interfaces, on the Web, for PCs, or for information appliances, you should read and understand the basic material in this book, which can never go out of date as long as humans use keyboards and mice with their hands and scan the screen with their eyes.

My own recent book, The Humane Interface, is -- in many aspects -- just following in the footsteps of this pathbreaking, pioneering, and important work.

Fred Allen, the only satirical comedian of radio's golden age, is revealed as a true American humorist, in the pantheon with Thurber, lardner and Twain. This book contains a wide selection of his writings, clear-eyed, wsitty, biting, compassionate. Excerpts from his two meoirs have the quality of what Frank McCourt wrote 50 years later in Angela's Ashes. Allen, we see, was the father of contemporary comedy and his influence prevails today. Letterman, Carson, Bob & Ray, Keillor, Your Show of Shows, Sat. Night Live - all are arguably legatees of his original sparkling style. This is perhaps the most deeply funny book I've read in years and will bring joy to readers of all ages. And it's a perfect gift for young people to give to parents and in-laws who, if they remember, say, tyhe Dionne Quintupl;ets, will be thrilled to get to oknow the great wit Fred Allen again. If there were 10 stars, I would award them to this book.

This is one of the few good books focusing on component based development. The best thing about the book is that practical examples from the realworld are used for ellaborating concepts. Although not a book for learning UML, the examples help in understanding how to apply UML. One of the things I found lacking in the book is chapters about design patterns. I think a second edition addressing components in relation to patterns should be made. In all a good resource for System architects and project leaders undertaking a project adopting a component based approach.

Certainly not up to standard for this established writer. Shallow plot; little character development; unimaginative, amateurish - almost laughable - dialogue. Mr. Woods runs the risk of losing new readers if this book was their first exposure to his work. Dead Eyes left tears in mine.

I am so glad that this was not the first Stuart Woods book that I had read, because I probably would not have continued on. Stuart Woods is a superb writer, however, this book is not some of his finest work. The story is set around an actress who is about to make it big, her gay hairdresser, her stalker, and the police detective who is helping her with the stalker. All of the characters seem very flat and are never fully developed. I would have never guessed the ending to the book only because Woods never steered the story toward the ending that occurred. It was almost as if he thought to himself, I need an ending and he just shoved it in without making sure that it flowed or made any sense. Kind of a disappointment after reading the whole book. If this is your first time reading Woods, I would suggest one of his Stone Barrington series novels which starts with "New York Dead". One of the best in this series is "Worst Fears Realized" or "Swimming to Catalina." After reading some of his other books, you will realize that this one was just a miss for him.

I really enjoyed the book...quite the page turner, but I felt unsatisfied with the ending. There was zero explanation as to "why". It reminded me a bit of what Patricia Cornwell will do. It's as though she (and Woods) realizes that she needs to wrap up the story & does so quickly, without much explanation as to why the killer was who the killer was. I realize a lot of times there aren't reasons for killings, but in a book, for $..., there could be a reason or two explained! It was a good read, not as good as "The Run" (the first I read), but enough to have me reading more of his books.

I taught from an earlier edition of this book at Ivy Tech in Bloomington, Indiana while working on a PhD at Indiana University. Ivy Tech had already selected this text. Too bad. While that was around 1994, I can still recall a number of FACTUAL ERRORS. I had to tell my students that the text was wrong. Among the errors: The clear implication (though not explicitly stated) that the algebraic numbers included all the reals - that is they didn't even seem to be aquainted with the transedentals; there was another error regarding conditional probabilities... I can't recall exactly, but I can remember showing the errors to fellow doctoral students (now at UN, Reno and UC, Davis) for a good laugh. What were the reviewers doing? I guess they're a bunch of incompetents as well. To the publisher: Have some real mathematicians review math books.

I have been teaching out of Angel & Porter for the last three years. It has quite a few good examples, though I agree with the first reviewer's comment that it does need more challenging problems.

Among the topics I have covered are: inductive reasoning, set concepts, symbolic logic, truth tables, algebra, applied geometry, probability, statistics, and mathematics of finance. Though the examples are laid out fairly well for those who are mathematically inclined, the teacher who happens to have quite a few students with weak mathematical skills is often finding himself or herself in situations of having to create ways to become an effective expositor of mathematical theorems and applications. In other words, by trying to explain what the authors are providing in their examples, the instructor is frequently shouldering the added burden of making this book come to life not only from a mathematical perspective but also from a communicative standpoint.

On a positive note, however, there are several excellent applications, and the range of topics is quite broad. Oftentimes there is a gap between the level of advanced high school mathematics and that of a four-year university that is so serious that even a student who performed A's in high school will struggle in the type of college math course he or she is placed in. Fortunately, Angel and Porter have been able to fill in quite a few of the missing pieces.

This book does the job of teaching some mathematics to those with liberal-arts majors. However, over at Wayne State, we are constantly bemoaning the lack of extra problems for students to practice what they have learned (especially in light of the fact that we cover only half of the chapters of this book in a single one semester course). This is especially apparent with the probability and statistics chapters. Overall I can see this text being a commendable effort on the part of Angel and Porter to bring mathematics to those who would normally shun it.

If you're not already familiar with this era of English history, Burnet's book will be hard to follow. Important characters (so familiar to those times) enter our stage without introduction, and after dropping famous hints, or carrying off some great exploit, are discarded without subsequent investigation. In short, Burnet touches lightly on the events and main players of each year from 1660-1712, but scarcely troubles himself to round out his topics, or give life to his characters. As he himself says, he only writes on areas where he was a key witness, but doesn't enlarge on events which most likely would appear in other history books.

After reading Hume or Macaulay, Burnet's writings seem almost useless. An important figure of the times, it is difficult to conceive how this volume figures as an important journal of the times, yet for its defense, we are told that Swift owned a copy.