lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (12/18/89)
In <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. Yes, they are experienced.. in running Macs. There are millions of folks experienced in doing a lot of things with less than the best tools for the job. It doesn't follow that using inapropriate tools is A Good Thing. >> ...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. Funny you should mention that. If having two user interfaces is so costly, why are Macs so high priced compared to Amigas? >> 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! In the early days of the Mac, Apple did not see fit to provide cursor keys. At that time, when it was pointed out that cursor keys might be A Good Thing, the rationalizations of the Mac owners could be heard proclaiming the superiority of the mouse for such things. Don't seem to hear that too much any more with respect to cursor keys. Now it's canged to things like "Providing two interfaces is too costly", and in general, "The mouse is good for everything I can do with the mouse, and I don't need to do anything I can't do with the mouse." Sounds real familiar. >> 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. Call it a feature if you want. I'll go along with it being a bug. Why is it that every user of a machine with blatant deficiencies wants to justify it and drag everyone else down to the same level? >> 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. That statement speaks volumes. I'd rather have the manufacturer provide the right tools, a choice of tools, in ways that allow the user to decide for himself. You'd rather be bound by the fascism of the manufacturer telling you what user interface is best for you, and removing choice. I see no inherent difference between the IBM PC(lones) and the Mac, in that the OS only provides one way of communicating with the machine, leaving the workarounds to the application programmers and addon interface writers. Even with its two user interfaces, the Amiga has its share of folks writing their own versions of them. That should tell you and Apple something about trying to force a single type of interface down the throats of the computing public. -larry -- " All I ask of my body is that it carry around my head." - Thomas Alva Edison - +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
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!
jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R. Jacobs) (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. "100,000 Mac users can't be wrong ..." Tell me about absurd. You entirely missed my point. I'm not telling anybody not to use mice/menus etc. They are great for doing many things, especially when learning to use a new software package. All I'm saying is that mice/menus aren't the best way to do _everything_, and there is a lot to be said for letting the user decide when they are best. I'm well aware that there are grundles of happy Mac'ers out there, but there are also many thousands of Mac users that get tired of digging through menus to do everything, when some simple typed commands would perform the same operation on any system that had a little support for typed commands. > 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 are putting words in my mouth that I did not use. All I said was that it is better to give the user a choice. All commands with no mouse support is almost as bad as all mouse support with no support for commands. >> 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. I'm merely suggesting ways to improve on a good thing. After all, progress is not made by people that are satified with the status quo. >> Again, giving the user a _choice_ is a better solution. > > Talk to the application developers. Why gripe to the application developers about a fundamental flaw in the system? All of the serious applications that I've seen have much better keyboard support than the Finder. -- Steve Jacobs ({bellcore,hplabs,uunet}!utah-cs!jacobs, jacobs@cs.utah.edu)
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
casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) (12/20/89)
In article <JACOBS.89Dec18135051@cmos.cs.utah.edu> jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R. Jacobs) writes: > I'm well aware that there are grundles of happy Mac'ers out there, but > there are also many thousands of Mac users that get tired of digging > through menus to do everything, when some simple typed commands would > perform the same operation on any system that had a little support for > typed commands... All commands with no mouse support > is almost as bad as all mouse support with no support for commands. How much support do you want? The Mac makes it very easy to implement a type-in interface -- easier, in fact, than implementing a point/click interface. > Why gripe to the application developers about a fundamental flaw in > the system? All of the serious applications that I've seen have much > better keyboard support than the Finder. Is it the Finder's lack of type-in interface that bothers you? The Finder is not the system, it's just an application. Numerous developers have written substitutes for the Finder, and some of them provide a type-in interface. I don't know if any of these are on the market, though, because in fact very few people seem to want this kind of interface on the Finder. David Casseres Exclaimer: Hey!
casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) (12/20/89)
In article <920@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: [I wrote] > >Talk to the application developers. > That statement speaks volumes. I'd rather have the manufacturer provide > the right tools, a choice of tools, in ways that allow the user to > decide for himself. You'd rather be bound by the fascism of the > manufacturer telling you what user interface is best for you, and > removing choice. Let me spell something out for you: The Mac makes it possible to implement a point/click interface; it makes it MUCH EASIER to implement a type-in interface. What "tools" do you think Apple should provide? > I see no inherent difference between the IBM PC(lones) and the Mac, in > that the OS only provides one way of communicating with the machine, > leaving the workarounds to the application programmers and addon > interface writers. Even with its two user interfaces, the Amiga has > its share of folks writing their own versions of them. That should > tell you and Apple something about trying to force a single type of > interface down the throats of the computing public. Apple does not try to force a single type of user interface down anyone's throat, as you would know if you would learn anything about the Mac. David Casseres Exclaimer: Hey!
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 ! *
gdavis@primate.wisc.edu (Gary Davis) (12/21/89)
From article <5876@internal.Apple.COM>, by casseres@apple.com (David Casseres): > > Is it the Finder's lack of type-in interface that bothers you? The Finder > is not the system, it's just an application. Numerous developers have > written substitutes for the Finder, and some of them provide a type-in > interface. I don't know if any of these are on the market, though, > because in fact very few people seem to want this kind of interface on the > Finder. > Soon after the Mac was introduced there were at least two command-line Finder substitutes available for the Mac from third parties. Someone even ported CPM 68K over (So the Mac could have a real operating system -:)). None of this stuff sold, except maybe to Jerry Pournelle. Most Mac users, including the many technically adept converts from older systems like MS-DOS or Apple DOS, quickly saw that a command line wasn't really needed. I suspect some of the people who insist that command lines are faster than menus haven't really used the Mac and are thinking of the often clumsier kinds of nested, modal menu systems you can find on MS-DOS. I wouldn't want to claim that there are never situations where command lines might not be useful, especially when you can combine them into batch files, though these situations are rare. Someone has probably already pointed out the MPW does give you command line and batch file capabilities, though you have to pay extra for it. But there is also a public domain command line and batch file interface available for the Mac, which looks pretty much like MS-DOS. I don't remember its name, but I think it's available on sumex. I think it's fair to say too that Apple actually includes a command line with every Mac, namely HyperCard. You can do pretty much any kind of file management you might like from the message box in HyperCard, though it is true that you would need to plug in some XCMDs. But HyperCard was designed to make plugging in extra functions very easy. HyperCard also can serve as a very nice batch file facility, much more powerful than that in MS-DOS and more like REXX in its capabilities. I have to admit that occasionally a facility like this can be quite useful. For instance, I had 845 small text files containing experimental data that I needed to analyze in various ways. It was quite easy to set up HyperCard to open all those files in succession, do the analyses and dump out files with the results. I wouldn't have wanted to sit down with the average interactive- style Mac program and go through them all myself. Gary Davis
trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) (12/21/89)
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: >Funny you should mention that. If having two user interfaces is so costly, why >are Macs so high priced compared to Amigas? Because Macs are easier to use than Amigas, tend to be more reliable, and have a vastly greater number of applications available for use. All of which makes the _utility_ of the Mac > than that of the Amiga, which means that users are willing to pay a higher price to get that extra utility. Don't blame Apple for being good capitalists and maximizing their return. -- Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor | trebor@biar.UUCP Announcing TEMPORAL EXPRESS. For only $999,999.95 (per page), your message will be carefully stored, then sent back in time as soon as technologically possible. TEMEX - when it absolutely, postively has to be there yesterday!
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.
leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (12/21/89)
Here are my two favorite examples of why it is at least *sometimes*
a good idea to have a command line interface available.
1. del *.bak
vs
{long sequence of click and drags}
2. copy \subdir\filename.ext
vs
{the totally *non* intuitive sequence needed to move a file from
a subdirectory to the root directory}
I make extensive use of utilities with a "point and shoot" interface,
so I know that command line isn't perfect. But on the other hand, there
are times when command line is a whole lot simpler.
BTW how come I can't drag the file onto the desktop, close the window
on the subdirectory, then grab the file from where I left it and drop
it into the window for the root directory? *That* would be intuitive!
--
Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.
Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Shortcasseres@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
rubinoff@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Robert Rubinoff) (12/23/89)
In article <1830@bucket.UUCP> leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: >2. copy \subdir\filename.ext > vs > {the totally *non* intuitive sequence needed to move a file from > a subdirectory to the root directory} > >BTW how come I can't drag the file onto the desktop, close the window >on the subdirectory, then grab the file from where I left it and drop >it into the window for the root directory? *That* would be intuitive! You can, you know! It works just fine! Robert
tay@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Mike Taylor) (12/27/89)
> 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? I think that one of the major advantages that gets overlooked by those who are not accustomed to using X Window Systems is that they provide a standard protocol for displaying an application over the network. I have the opportunity to see the importance of this every day. For instance, my company is currently marketing a not yet released software product to a certain customer who has a very large installation of competitor's platforms. The problem is that although the customer sees the product as something they would like very much, we will not be able to support the software on our competitor's platforms in the short term. The solution is that since both our platforms and our competitors support X Window Systems, the end-user who needs to use the software execute the binary on our platform and have it displayed on any platform that supports X Window Systems. So, the advantage of owning a system that supports X Window Systems is having a network transparent windowing system. The GUI is another issue. Motif, Open Look, *View, etc, are all toolkits, which are used on the X Window System to provide application developers with a means for providing some standard GUI versus writing your code at the X Window System protocol level. If Apple chose to, they could provide a toolkit compatible with the Mac look and feel. As I understand, Apple IS working at providing X on the Mac, but, I will admit that I am new to this notes group and mostly ignorant about what Apple is doing with the Mac. I can say that the Mac interface is at this moment in time, probably the most intuitive, but this is no reason for Apple to sit content. There is more to a computer than the look and feel of it's user interface, as we will certainly see in the '90's. As far as the terminal-based vs. graphical-based interface discussion, this is how it is: Terminal-based (keyboard-only) applications are generally less user friendly and generally more flexible. Graphical-based (mouse and keyboard) are generally more user friendly and generally less flexible. Although I have not used a Mac intensively, it seems that it is generally targeted for the user who prefers to know as little as possible about the computer and just wants to get some work done. While Apple has made landmark progress in the usability of computers, the Mac interface *is not* the ultimate. For the time being, if Apple wishes to extend it's Mac target market, it will have to consider the lack of a terminal-based interface as a defect. I find it hard to believe that such an interface would be that technically difficult to achieve if you look at what people really need, although, far be it from me to espouse what people need, but I would contend that a little more flexibility in the Mac environment wouldn't hurt. Mike "Sold on X" Taylor
stel@tank.uchicago.edu (stelios valavanis) (12/27/89)
In article <1830@bucket.UUCP> leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: > >Here are my two favorite examples of why it is at least *sometimes* >a good idea to have a command line interface available. > >1. del *.bak > vs > {long sequence of click and drags} you can do this on the mac by viewing files by 'type' and selecting all the files with that type with a single mouse-stroke and dragginf them to the trash. i do it all the time. not only that you can exclude a couple of those files by shift-clicking them out of the selection before dragging to the trash. try doing that on your vanilla pc! the only thing that allows you to do stuff like that on a pc are utls like xtree pro which i think is a very good piece of software. i haven't seen what the mac version looks like since i have never gotten frustrated with the interface as i have been on the pc. for your info i have been a pc programmer/user for a couple more years than on the mac. >2. copy \subdir\filename.ext > vs > {the totally *non* intuitive sequence needed to move a file from > a subdirectory to the root directory} try dragging directly to the disk icon. this will put whatever into the root directory. >I make extensive use of utilities with a "point and shoot" interface, >so I know that command line isn't perfect. But on the other hand, there >are times when command line is a whole lot simpler. i agree but so many of these have been addressed so well on the mac that i can't help but prefer it. and windows doesn't compare since you have to setup each prog to get it to work properly and not all support the mouse nor the fonts and you can't click on files. i still use windows most of the time when on a pc but the fact that i have to exit it to run something because i haven't installed it yet and don't have the time means something. >BTW how come I can't drag the file onto the desktop, close the window >on the subdirectory, then grab the file from where I left it and drop >it into the window for the root directory? *That* would be intuitive! stel -- Bitnet: uclstel@uchimvs1.bitnet | remember, you can't know something Internet: stel@tank.uchicago.edu | you don't know, but you can uucp: ...!uunet!mimsy!oddjob!tank!stel | be aware of it
long@rainbo.enet.dec.com (Richard C. Long) (12/27/89)
In article <6877@tank.uchicago.edu>, stel@tank.uchicago.edu (stelios valavanis) writes... >In article <1830@bucket.UUCP> leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: >> >>1. del *.bak >> vs >> {long sequence of click and drags} > >you can do this on the mac by viewing files by 'type' and selecting >all the files with that type with a single mouse-stroke and dragginf ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >them to the trash. i do it all the time. not only that you can >exclude a couple of those files by shift-clicking them out of the >selection before dragging to the trash. try doing that on your >[...] How do you do that? The selection marquee doesn't work in any non-icon view. I've always had to shift-click each file I want deleted, then drag them all as a unit, which is a major pain. I think this is one area where a CLI is better. Rich ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /'') /'' / | long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com | Hey! You're not /''\ /__ /__ | ...!decwrl!mcntsh.enet.dec.com!long | Rockin' Ricky Richard C. Long | long%mcntsh.dec@decwrl.enet.dec.com | fans! -- "Gremlins"
barmar@Think.COM (12/27/89)
In article <7116@shlump.nac.dec.com> long@rainbo.enet.dec.com (Richard C. Long) writes: >How do you do that? The selection marquee doesn't work in any non-icon view. >I've always had to shift-click each file I want deleted, then drag them all as >a unit, which is a major pain. I think this is one area where a CLI is better. Well, it's an area where the DOS/Unix-style CLI is better than the Finder, but it shouldn't be an indictment of graphical interfaces in general. Many Mac applications that display lists of things permit you to drag through the list in order to select a sequence of contiguous items; maybe someday the Finder will include this feature. I can also conceive of more sophisticated possibilities, such as a "Select All of Type..." menu option (it would pop up a list of all the file types in the window), or in a textual view some kind of click on the type description could select all documents of that type. Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
6600pete@hub.UUCP (12/29/89)
Follow-up To: alt.religion.computers References: <6877@tank.uchicago.edu> In article <1830@bucket.UUCP> leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: >BTW how come I can't drag the file onto the desktop, close the window >on the subdirectory, then grab the file from where I left it and drop >it into the window for the root directory? *That* would be intuitive! I do it every day. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
6600pete@hub.UUCP (12/29/89)
Follow-up To: alt.religion.computers
References: <7116@shlump.nac.dec.com>
From article <7116@shlump.nac.dec.com>, by long@rainbo.enet.dec.com (Richard C. Long):
> The [Finder] selection marquee doesn't work in any non-icon view.
Well, it doesn't work _well_. That needs to be addressed. It _is_ possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa
Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription
Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills