Pleasant@Rutgers (08/13/82)
HUMAN-NETS Digest Friday, 13 Aug 1982 Volume 5 : Issue 78
Today's Topics:
Query - Lauren's Message on Lists,
Programming - Command Languages &
Memorable Command Language / VMS is? &
Command Languages, Bandwidth, Abbreviations and Encodings &
Text Justification,
Computers and People - Human vs. Network Names &
Computer Network Addiction...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 11 Aug 1982 2106-EDT
From: Daniel Breslau <MDC.BRESLA at MIT-OZ at MIT-AI>
Subject: Re: Lauren's message on lists.
Let's see:
Telecommunications messages belong on Telecom.
Messages about computers and politics belong on Poli-Sci.
Messages about computers and science fiction go on SF-Lovers.
Messages about computers and the law go on Law-digest (name?)
Messages about computers and space go on Space digest.
VAXen, CP/M, Unix, PC's, Twenex, Emacs, editors, workstations,
etc. all have their own lists.
Tell me, what belongs on Human-Nets?
Facetiously yours,
Dan Breslau
------------------------------
Date: 11 Aug 1982 1910-EDT
From: Daniel Breslau <MDC.BRESLA at MIT-OZ at MIT-AI>
Subject: Re: Command Languages
Ian proposed a command language where all commands must be, in
effect, English sentences (using a verb and object, with "you" as an
implied subject). This probably requires too much typing on most
systems, except --
Some people don't like Twenex, and not without reason. But
one of it's best features, and one I haven't seen elsewhere, is that
of recognition. One can start typing a command, hit <esc> and let the
computer finish it if it can. The machine won't start the command at
this point; it simply tells you what it'll do with your partial
command. If you're stuck at any point, typing a ? at command level
gets you a list of options.
Of course this isn't news to many of you. But I'm surprised I
didn't notice any mention of this on the list. I think it's the most
winning command language available, especially in the programmable
versions (PCL, et al). I'm surprised that no one else has used this
feature. Comments, anyone?
------------------------------
Date: 11 Aug 1982 1048-MDT
From: Walt <Haas at UTAH-20>
Subject: Re: Memorable command language / VMS is?
TOPS-20 has an excellent way of informing the user as to exactly what
it is that the "delete" command deletes. If you type "delete" and
press the ESCAPE key, the exec tells you what the object is. Example:
@delete (FILES) _
The cursor is left at the point indicated by the underscore.
Furthermore, the exec will complete any unique initial substring (such
as "del", "dele" etc.) when the ESCAPE is typed, and will echo a bell
for any ambiguous initial substring ("d", "de"). This is probably the
best solution to the problem that I have ever encountered.
------------------------------
Date: 11 August 1982 04:37-EDT
From: Glenn S. Tenney <TENNEY at MIT-MC>
Subject: Command languages, bandwidth, abbreviations and encodings.
Your comments follow my own over the past few years. A system MUST
support the neophyte as well as the experienced user. At some times
even the most experienced user becomes a neophyte, as when one hasn't
used a command for a few months. I have implemented many full screen
(VM/SP 3270) user-friendly "systems" utilizing the following basis:
* There is always a HELP command and any other command
responds to a ? with assistance.
* Providing all parameters invokes the command (ie.,
experienced user).
* Omitted required parameters cause a full screen entry
'panel' showing all entered parameters as well as what are
missing. All parameters may be changed, the command may be
aborted and missing parameters are shown with a default
value when possible. When possible, a full screen includes
some commentary about the command.
* Program function keys provides a way to 'abbreviate'
commands. These keys can change meaning being context
sensitive.
Glenn S. Tenney
------------------------------
Date: Wednesday, 11 August 1982 13:04-PDT
From: Jonathan Alan Solomon <JSol at USC-ECLC>
Subject: Text justification
I run my mailer (BABYL) and editor (EMACS) with fill mode on, what
that does for me is it automatically inserts <CR><LF> (new lines) into
the text for me so I do not have to do it. This seems fine but looks
awkward (in my opinion).
I have tried out justification mode (where words are spaced out across
fixed line boundaries) and don't mind it but it seems to offend others
who have to read my messages.
I just saw someone use a text justifier which inserts hyphens in for
words which are longer than the line length you specify, and keeps the
lines all the same length. It would seem to me that this is the
solution. Does anyone have any comments on the subject of text
justification? I remember an old discussion of this in HUMAN-NETS but
I don't recall if there was a final resolution?
--JSol
------------------------------
Date: Wednesday, 11 August 1982, 16:48-EDT
From: Robert W. Kerns <RWK at SCRC-TENEX at MIT-MC>
Subject: Human vs. network names
BARBER at XX complains of using addresses rather than given names. He
also refers to century old practices. I'd like to point out that
"BARBER at XX" (or "Steve Barber at XX" for those mail systems that
can handle it) is an extension of the century old practice of naming
people after where they are from, who their father is, or what their
title is.
How many Joe Smiths do you think there are in the Boston phone book?
(I count 29). There is only one Joe@HARVARD. It seems to me much
more personal to be named specifically enough not to be confused with
someone else, and to be named well enough that I can be corresponded
with. If I were to refer to "Steve Barber" without the "BERLIN@XX"
(as even HE didn't do!), it would be much less personal.
------------------------------
Date: Wednesday, 11 August 1982 12:52-PDT
From: Jonathan Alan Solomon <JSol at USC-ECLC>
Subject: Computer Network Addiction...
While we are on the topic of ... (well even if we aren't).
I was recently reminded of yet another aspect of Computer Addiction,
which is related to how seriously someone considers the network and
the kinds of things that go on in the network environment (I'm using
the ARPANET/UUCP/Local-network/CSNET environment as an example since
it is the one I am the most familiar with).
Ever since I first "found" the ARPANET; some 3 years ago, I have
considered it a playground. It is also a place where quite a bit of
work gets done, but I think the "playground" atmosphere really
encourages the work, since if you can make your work fun then you will
want to work harder, increasing productivity, but also increasing the
addiction.
One of the ways to tell if you are addicted is how you express
yourself on the network. I have expressed myself in many ways (not
all of which are good), and I have had my feelings hurt and my ego
bruised by some of the people on the network.
If you feel hurt personally by something someone said to you in a
computer mail message, or you it more seriously at times than the
"real world", then you are addicted. Sometimes it feels like it is the
real world for me. It certainly is a place to escape from reality,
thus my addiction. I have learned to put 'puters (and the network)
into perspective, but I still get emotional about topics which I
discuss on the network, and I probably always will. This is addiction.
--JSol
Jonathan Alan Solomon, <JSol at USC-ECLC> for you ARPANauts,
....ucbvax!randvax!csevax!jsol for uucp people (don't you have a
name yet?), and jsol.usc-cse@UDEL-RELAY for CSNET folks.
p.s. I have only heard the term "ARPANauts" used on UUCP to reference
ARPANET people. I have never heard ARPANaut used by Arpanet
people.
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************