kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) (12/18/89)
In article <1989Dec17.223025.6618@me.toronto.edu> yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes: >I wrote: >>Why hasn't anyone sue the big blue for >>- giving user the *ugly*, *unfriendly* text based interface from hell? >>- shamelessly cheat the users for a actually not so good computer? >>- rudely made many users' life miserable and waster users' time? >[lines deleted] > Then again, my first summer job was writing assembly language > programs for these things back in '85 (aside: I didn't even know ^^^^^^^^^^^ > what assembly language was, when I got the job :-) and I can see > how people who can't intuit the innards of DOS/Unix might have > a problem. I believe we are at the end of the 80's and almost into the 90's :-). Back in '85, people would "wow" at a application like MacPaint, people would be happy if they can see a menu listing of commands. But today, you will probably want to use some high level language and make some library/toolbox calls to draw windows, control the mouse, make the interface "standard". Assembly language is fast and I have nothing against it, but it is not practical to program a sophiscated application using it on today's fast computers. My main points are : The computer for the general users should not be command driven. The real use for computers when *everyone* can use it as a source for information/communication, just like a telephone. To reduce the learning curve and be intuitive, standalized pull down menus, mouse, window, dialogs is superior than purely command driven. I believe the netters will agree with me that the success of UNIX is not because of its command driven interface. The power is in its system, after so many fixes. Here is the point again, why are people building XWindow, *View..etc on it? If the innard of UNIX is so intuitive, why bother with these windowing systems? After one spend enought time with a system, something that's not so intuitive will become *nature* to him. It is simply unfair to say that system is "intuitive" to the *general users* when he spend hours on it. I probably really have not "intuite the innards of DOS", I think these GUIs have spoiled me -- and after I have seen what people are going through with the DOS.
jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R. Jacobs) (12/18/89)
In article <14969@boulder.Colorado.EDU> kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes: > My main points are : The computer for the general users should not be > command driven. > The real use for computers when *everyone* can > use it as a source for information/communication, > just like a telephone. > > To reduce the learning curve and be intuitive, standalized pull > down menus, mouse, window, dialogs is superior than purely command > driven. Menus and mice are great when you are first learning to use a system, but they get in the way of experienced users. An ideal system should not _force_ the user to use a mouse/menu system, just as an ideal system should not _force_ the user to type commands. An ideal system should allow the user to use _either_ the mouse or the keyboard, based on the preference of the user. Neither the Mac nor the PC are even close to ideal in this regard. Apple had a great opportunity to make an ideal system with the Mac, but they blew it by forcing the mouse on everyone. Sure, lots of applications will give you a choice in many commands, but this is not part of the standard interface -- you can't even start up the application without using the mouse. This is a bug, not a feature. It would have been better if everything could be done both ways. > I believe the netters will agree with me that the success of UNIX is > not because of its command driven interface. The power is in its system, > after so many fixes. > Here is the point again, why are people building XWindow, *View..etc on > it? If the innard of UNIX is so intuitive, why bother with these > windowing systems? The point _isn't_ that mice/menus are bad. The point is that being *forced* to use the mouse is bad. For many, it is much more efficient to type in commands rather than drag the mouse through a bunch of menus. For others, it is much easier to use the menus. The Mac doesn't give the user much choice. If keyboards are so evil, then why do so many Mac applications have keystroke "shortcuts" for most of their commands? Again, giving the user a _choice_ is a better solutions. -- Steve Jacobs ({bellcore,hplabs,uunet}!utah-cs!jacobs, jacobs@cs.utah.edu)
casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) (12/19/89)
In article <JACOBS.89Dec18090720@cmos.cs.utah.edu> jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R. Jacobs) writes: > Menus and mice are great when you are first learning to use a system, but > they get in the way of experienced users. Sorry, but this is an absurd statement. There are many thousands of experienced users who are very happy with the Mac interface. > ...An ideal system should > allow the user to use _either_ the mouse or the keyboard, based on the > preference of the user. This may be so, but the expense of developing two user interfaces for one system would be rather high. The real benefit of a type-in user interface comes in being able to write a script of many commands to be executed as a batch, and in applications where this makes sense, the application developers have provided macro facilities that serve the purpose. For programmers, Apple's own MPW offers a highly customizable interface that give you just about as much type-in as you want, or as little. There is no real need to provide something as specialized as a type-in interface at the system level, forcing everyone to pay for it. > Neither the Mac nor the PC are even close to > ideal in this regard. Apple had a great opportunity to make an ideal > system with the Mac, but they blew it by forcing the mouse on everyone. There is nothing in the Mac that forces any application to use the mouse. In the early days of the Mac, quite a few developers did quick ports of their PC applications, with type-in interfaces, to the Mac. Guess what? Nobody would buy them. SOMEBODY wants the mouse whole lot! > Sure, lots of applications will give you a choice in many commands, but > this is not part of the standard interface -- you can't even start up > the application without using the mouse. This is a bug, not a feature. No, friend, this is a feature that you don't like. > If keyboards are so evil, then > why do so many Mac applications have keystroke "shortcuts" for most > of their commands? Because that is a standard part of the Mac user interface. > Again, giving the user a _choice_ is a better solution. Talk to the application developers. David Casseres Exclaimer: Hey!
a218@mindlink.UUCP (Charlie Gibbs) (12/19/89)
In article <5828@internal.Apple.COM> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes: >In article <JACOBS.89Dec18090720@cmos.cs.utah.edu> jacobs@cs.utah.edu >(Steven R. Jacobs) writes: >> Menus and mice are great when you are first learning to use a system, but >> they get in the way of experienced users. > >Sorry, but this is an absurd statement. There are many thousands of >experienced users who are very happy with the Mac interface. There may be many thousands of experienced users who aren't, and many more thousands who would like to choose one or the other according to their needs or moods. I'm sure I could find many thousands of experienced users who are very happy with the IBM interface; this doesn't justify calling a preference for mice and menus "absurd". >> ...An ideal system should >> allow the user to use _either_ the mouse or the keyboard, based on the >> preference of the user. > >This may be so, but the expense of developing two user interfaces for one >system would be rather high. I could call this an "absurd statement" but I'll stay away from such polemics. :-) In fact, writing a command interpreter is easy enough to do that Commodore provides _two_ with the Amiga, and a number of other people have written their own excellent alternatives. > The real benefit of a type-in user interface >comes in being able to write a script of many commands to be executed as a >batch, and in applications where this makes sense, the application >developers have provided macro facilities that serve the purpose. This is _a_ real benefit. Whether it's _the_ real benefit depends on whether you want to use commands for anything else. > For >programmers, Apple's own MPW offers a highly customizable interface that >give you just about as much type-in as you want, or as little. ^^^^^^^^^^ 'Nuff said. > There is >no real need to provide something as specialized as a type-in interface at >the system level, forcing everyone to pay for it. Specialized? Ask a Unix user how specialized a command line is. As for "forcing everyone to pay for it", the Amiga's CLI doesn't even appear unless you specifically ask for it. If instead you're referring to development costs again, I don't think the Amiga costs so much more than a Mac that people will complain. :-) Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.UUCP "I could never get the hang of ideology. I do the rock, myself." -- Tim Curry
plouff@levers.enet.dec.com (12/19/89)
In article <5828@internal.Apple.COM>, casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes... >In article <JACOBS.89Dec18090720@cmos.cs.utah.edu> jacobs@cs.utah.edu >(Steven R. Jacobs) writes: >> ...An ideal system should >> allow the user to use _either_ the mouse or the keyboard, based on the >> preference of the user. > >This may be so, but the expense of developing two user interfaces for one >system would be rather high. The real benefit of a type-in user interface >comes in being able to write a script of many commands to be executed as a >batch, and in applications where this makes sense, the application >developers have provided macro facilities that serve the purpose. For >programmers, Apple's own MPW offers a highly customizable interface that >give you just about as much type-in as you want, or as little. There is >no real need to provide something as specialized as a type-in interface at >the system level, forcing everyone to pay for it. > Point of fact, since we're getting all this GUI war stuff in comp.sys.amiga... _Every_ Amiga, from Day 1, has shipped with two user interfaces, the desktop-ish Workbench and the line-oriented CLI. There are some differences requiring programs to know which UI invoked them, but the startup code is pretty much pro forma. With the next version of the operating system, AmigaDOS 1.4 (shipping RSN), rumor has it that the two interfaces will be brought closer together with default file icons and text-oriented Workbench file list options, the latter similar to Microsoft Windows. So Amiga says "yes" to both camps. Now can you move the debate out of the Amiga newsgroup? Wes Plouff -- Wes Plouff, Digital Equipment Corp, Littleton, Mass. plouff%levers.enet.dec@decwrl.dec.com Networking bibliography: _Islands in the Net_, by Bruce Sterling _The Matrix_, by John S. Quarterman
swan@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US (Joel Swan) (12/19/89)
In article <JACOBS.89Dec18090720@cmos.cs.utah.edu> jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R. Jacobs) writes: :In article <14969@boulder.Colorado.EDU> kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes: :> My main points are : The computer for the general users should not be :> command driven. : :Menus and mice are great when you are first learning to use a system, but :they get in the way of experienced users. An ideal system should not :_force_ the user to use a mouse/menu system, just as an ideal system :should not _force_ the user to type commands. An ideal system should :allow the user to use _either_ the mouse or the keyboard, based on the :preference of the user. Neither the Mac nor the PC are even close to :ideal in this regard. ..... Hmm. Sounds like an Amiga to me. Now's the time to take a closer look. : :-- :Steve Jacobs ({bellcore,hplabs,uunet}!utah-cs!jacobs, jacobs@cs.utah.edu) Joel Swan
bmacintyre@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Blair MacIntyre) (12/20/89)
swan@jolnet.UUCP (Joel Swan) writes: >In article <JACOBS.89Dec18090720@cmos.cs.utah.edu> jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R. Jacobs) writes: >: >:Menus and mice are great when you are first learning to use a system, but >:they get in the way of experienced users. An ideal system should not >:_force_ the user to use a mouse/menu system, just as an ideal system >:should not _force_ the user to type commands. An ideal system should >:allow the user to use _either_ the mouse or the keyboard, based on the >:preference of the user. Neither the Mac nor the PC are even close to >:ideal in this regard. ..... > >Hmm. Sounds like an Amiga to me. Now's the time to take a closer look. Sorry Joel, while I like the Amiga a lot, I'm forced to disagree. What Steve is talking about is this ability _within_ programs. The Amiga WB/CLI combo qualifies, which is what I assume you were talking about. The Amiga as a whole system, however, doesn't cut it. Programs for the Amiga display such a huge amount of inconsistency between user-interfaces that it can't even claim to be an intuitive mouse system half the time. Not to even suggest what you claim. I'm surprised no one has noticed what I consider the main reason the Amiga hasn't, and may never, drive the Mac out of any of it's niches. What I'm talking about is inconsistency, which is caused by the very features that make it a great machine. For example, the variety of colours available, which vary wildly from program to program, and don't seem to like _my_ preferences! And little things, like a lack of clipboard (never really was a hit, I'm not sure why) support. And the lack of standard menus ( even though Commodore suggested a nice starting place with the entries in the file menu ). The Mac still wins hands down for professional appearance and user-interface consistency. For the "occasional" user, it is the easiest to learn, IMHO. -- -- Blair MacIntyre, Professional Leech on Society ( aka CS Graduate Student ) -- bmacintyre@{watcgl, watdragon, violet}.{waterloo.edu, UWaterloo.ca} -- Date, verb: prearranged socializing with intent.
robin@niksula.hut.fi (Jarto Tarpio) (12/20/89)
In article <5828@internal.Apple.COM> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes: In article <JACOBS.89Dec18090720@cmos.cs.utah.edu> jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R. Jacobs) writes: > Menus and mice are great when you are first learning to use a system, but > they get in the way of experienced users. Sorry, but this is an absurd statement. There are many thousands of experienced users who are very happy with the Mac interface. I think, that they would be _more_ happy with a possibility to use it. I like the mouse and use icons etc., but I always have a small window in a corner, where I can run DOS. That's a feature. > ...An ideal system should > allow the user to use _either_ the mouse or the keyboard, based on the > preference of the user. Not either-or. Both simultaneously ! > Neither the Mac nor the PC are even close to > ideal in this regard. Apple had a great opportunity to make an ideal > system with the Mac, but they blew it by forcing the mouse on everyone. There is nothing in the Mac that forces any application to use the mouse. In the early days of the Mac, quite a few developers did quick ports of their PC applications, with type-in interfaces, to the Mac. Guess what? Nobody would buy them. SOMEBODY wants the mouse whole lot! You missed the point. Why use keyboard OR mouse, when it should be possible to use keyboard AND mouse. I have always liked systems, where you can freely choose the way you use it. > Sure, lots of applications will give you a choice in many commands, but > this is not part of the standard interface -- you can't even start up > the application without using the mouse. This is a bug, not a feature. No, friend, this is a feature that you don't like. Is it a feature to leave something out ? I like to compile and run my proggies without a mouse, when I have to do it a lot. > If keyboards are so evil, then > why do so many Mac applications have keystroke "shortcuts" for most > of their commands? Because that is a standard part of the Mac user interface. Now I don't understand. > Again, giving the user a _choice_ is a better solution. RIGHT ! Talk to the application developers. Talk to system-developers :) PLEASE ! There are articles here concerning only PC and Mac. What do they do here ? Please do not post such articles here. David Casseres Exclaimer: Hey! -- * Jarto Tarpio * robin@niksula.hut.fi * Helsinki * Place * * * f36695h@taltta.hut.fi * University of * Commercial * * * robin@otax.tky.hut.fi * Technology * Here ! * -- * Jarto Tarpio * robin@niksula.hut.fi * Helsinki * Place * * * f36695h@taltta.hut.fi * University of * Commercial * * * robin@otax.tky.hut.fi * Technology * Here ! *
jmann@bigbootay (Jim Mann) (12/21/89)
>> Neither the Mac nor the PC are even close to >> ideal in this regard. Apple had a great opportunity to make an ideal >> system with the Mac, but they blew it by forcing the mouse on everyone. >There is nothing in the Mac that forces any application to use the mouse. >In the early days of the Mac, quite a few developers did quick ports of >their PC applications, with type-in interfaces, to the Mac. Guess what? >Nobody would buy them. SOMEBODY wants the mouse whole lot! But the MAC does force you to use the mouse from system level. While this is nice much of the time, it would be nice in some cases to be able to use the keyboard. >> Sure, lots of applications will give you a choice in many commands, but >> this is not part of the standard interface -- you can't even start up >> the application without using the mouse. This is a bug, not a feature. >No, friend, this is a feature that you don't like. How is the lack of a feature (lack of a command line interface) a feature? It may not be a big negative but it certainly isn't a positive thing to not allow users to do more stuff from the command line.
casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) (12/22/89)
In article <ROBIN.89Dec20104650@tko-sony-12.hut.fi> robin@niksula.hut.fi (Jarto Tarpio) writes: > Not either-or. Both simultaneously !... > > ...Why use keyboard OR mouse, when it should be > possible to use keyboard AND mouse. I have always liked systems, > where you can freely choose the way you use it. > > ...I like to compile and run > my proggies without a mouse, when I have to do it a lot. Please take a look at MPW. You can customize it to provide exactly the mix of mouse and keyboard control you personally prefer. > > If keyboards are so evil, then > > why do so many Mac applications have keystroke "shortcuts" for most > > of their commands? > > Because that is a standard part of the Mac user interface. > > Now I don't understand. Take a look at Apple's documentation of Mac user interface guidelines. David Casseres Exclaimer: Hey!
casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) (12/22/89)
In article <502@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> jmann@bigbootay (Jim Mann) writes: > But the MAC does force you to use the mouse from system level. This is categorically false. Anyone who believes this has not in fact taken a close look at the Mac. David Casseres Exclaimer: Hey!
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (12/22/89)
In article <ROBIN.89Dec20104650@tko-sony-12.hut.fi> robin@niksula.hut.fi (Jarto Tarpio) writes: >In article <5828@internal.Apple.COM> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes: > In article <JACOBS.89Dec18090720@cmos.cs.utah.edu> jacobs@cs.utah.edu > (Steven R. Jacobs) writes: > > Menus and mice are great when you are first learning to use a system, but > > they get in the way of experienced users. > Sorry, but this is an absurd statement. There are many thousands of > experienced users who are very happy with the Mac interface. There are many experienced users happy with the MS-DOS, Lotus 1-2-3, and Wordperfect 4.0 user intefaces. That does not have thing one to do with the quality of those interfaces in many cases, it simply means that thay may have never had the choice or exposure to something better. To pick a relatively neutral ground, I'm a rather heavy user of Mentor software on an Apollo computer. The software can be completely used via a decent GUI with pop-up and pulldown menus (eg, in many cases faster than the Mac's, since you don't have to move the mouse to get the menus you use the most), and it can also be driven with a command language and keyboard. Everyone who first leans the system uses the mouse interface exclusively, since you can lean it in a few hours. However, most of the power users use the keyboard for many things. It's just plain faster for invoking operations that aren't inherently mouse based. I'd use a different tool if I had to enter nets by specifying numeric coordinates; there is and always will be a place for some kind of pointing device. But a keyboard is also very useful for entering commands, and I've found in using some rather complex programs that do it both ways, a full command language is better than single-character equivalents for mouse commands if you have enough of a program to need the command language. Just like the PC user who may have never used a mouse driven program, the Mac user can't begin to appreciate how much better some of their work can be done by command language without experiencing it first hand. > Not either-or. Both simultaneously ! Well, that is exactly what you get in the Mentor software. > SOMEBODY wants the mouse whole lot! Most any program will be easier to learn if it has a mouse driven interface. That interface is basically a command sheet (like the one that comes with Wordperfect) that the computer understands directly. Of course users want it. If both interfaces are offered, though, power users will invariably start using at least some of the command language, if it's available. Just what actually happens with the Mentor software and the Amiga system software (though few Amiga applications actually offer both). > > Sure, lots of applications will give you a choice in many commands, but > > this is not part of the standard interface -- you can't even start up > > the application without using the mouse. This is a bug, not a feature. > No, friend, this is a feature that you don't like. You can't claim to favor a user interface that offers both options, then claim that removing one option is actually a feature. I don't think it's a bug either, rather, a design flaw. Unfortunately, bugs can usually be fixed, design flaws often can't. >* Jarto Tarpio * robin@niksula.hut.fi * Helsinki * Place * -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Too much of everything is just enough