crandell@ut-sally.UUCP (09/17/83)
The survey on menus is now officially ended. Many thanks to everyone who
responded. I apologize to anyone who did not have the opportunity to
contribute.
Interestingly, there was no majority concensus for or against menus.
There was a fairly broad spectrum of views expressed in the 15 responses,
most of which seemed well thought out. Five said that they definitely
like using menus; seven reported that they do not; two refused to take
a definite "pro" or "con" position; and the other indicated that the
application would influence acceptance of menus. Of those who strongly
support the menu concept, three conceded the need for a display which can
be very quickly updated, and two suggested that menus are most useful
in conjunction with other display features such as windows. Most of
those opposed to using menus mentioned unpleasant experiences with
certain systems which incorporate them; three complained specifically
about the Tarzan problem (need to swing between limbs of the tree without
returning to the root level), and one also lamented the inflexibility
of some existing schemes with respect to systems changes. Three
respondents implied that extended "help" facilities are often a more
effective solution; one called for more extensive support of the "-k"
option under "man" in UN?X, while another praised the "?" feature of
TOPS-20.
Nearly everyone seemed to agree that most existing menu systems are
not well designed, and a few tried to explain the status quo in some
terms. One person suggested that the most basic deterrent to effective
menu system implementation in the past has been the predominance of
timesharing, as opposed to distributed computing power, which more
easily accomodates the response time and update speed unobtrusive menus
require.
Apparently, menu systems have potential, but they're hard to do well.
Thanks again for your contributions.
Jim ({ihnp4,ut-ngp}!ut-sally!crandell)