mls@whutt.UUCP (SIEMON) (03/11/88)
In article <17702@think.UUCP>, barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) writes: > > ... I also taught my parents, who are > completely computer illiterate, how to use the Mac. In this case, I > am very glad that it only has one button, as it was hard enough > teaching them how to use the menus, and double-clicking was a major > achievement. ... > > The Mac user interface is designed not to tax the memory of extremely > unsophisticated users. ... > > Barry Margolin But note that they need training. The sophisticated users need even MORE training! The notion that the Mac interface is "intuitive" is rubbish. (Yes, it's easy; that's not the same thing!) Don't get me wrong (:-)) I LOVE my MACII; and it IS very easy to do things on it that are hard to do on a PC-clone or on plain vanilla UNIX (I'm not talking about bit-mapped UNIX ala NeWS or X here). But I have always resented the notion that I should be a clone of Steve Jobs; one person's intuition is another's long hard struggle with frustration. (Boy did I sympathize with the guy who confessed his having to be shown double clicking. I caught on -- after a lot of agony -- from reading a manual, but Apple sure makes it hard. I HATE their condescendingly stupid tutorials.) The fanatics of the various computer religions never seem to realize that people are DIFFERENT and not in an US vs. THEM way. One major failing of the visual/mouse interface is that while a given interactive action is very easy, it is hard or impossible to do "meta" actions -- things that fit an easy algebraic pattern in some language for talking about actions (e.g., a UNIX shell). It is very encouraging to see recognition from Apple (MPW on one hand and A/UX on the other) that people and problems differ and require ALL GOOD solutions to come to the aid of the party ... (oops) Michael Siemon contracted to AT&T Bell Laboratories (disclaimer: these are my opinions) ihnp4!mhuxu!mls
arthure@sco.COM (Arthur Evans) (03/16/88)
In article <2940@whutt.UUCP> mls@whutt.UUCP (SIEMON) writes: > But note that they need training. The sophisticated users need >even MORE training! The notion that the Mac interface is "intuitive" is >rubbish. (Yes, it's easy; that's not the same thing!) I agree completely -- I agonized over the concept of removing a file on the mac for like half an hour ... The way it works just doesn't make sense to me. Why is it intuitive that moving an icon onto one icon (a disk or folder icon) *copies* a file, but moving it onto a garbage can icon *deletes* it? Intuition is in the mind of the intuiter, I guess ... -arthur -- Even Jesus wanted just a little more time When he was walking Spanish down the hall ... - Tom Waits
benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) (03/17/88)
In article <116@scolex>, arthure@sco.COM (Arthur Evans) writes:
# The way it works just doesn't make sense to me. Why is it
# intuitive that moving an icon onto one icon (a disk or
# folder icon) *copies* a file, but moving it onto a garbage
# can icon *deletes* it? Intuition is in the mind of the
Oh wait! It's gets even more interesting when you decide to
eject a disk by moving the *disk icon* to the *trash icon*!
This is *completely* COUNTER-INTUITIVE ... after all you just
deleted a file by dragging it to the trash.jk3t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jonathan King) (03/22/88)
arthure@sco.COM(Arthur Evans) writes (about unintuitive Mac interface): >I agree completely -- I agonized over the concept of >removing a file on the mac for like half an hour ... >The way it works just doesn't make sense to me. Why is it >intuitive that moving an icon onto one icon (a disk or >folder icon) *copies* a file, but moving it onto a garbage >can icon *deletes* it? Intuition is in the mind of the >intuiter, I guess ... Actually the story is a little stranger than that. Moving an icon around on the naked desktop just moves the icon around--that's all. Moving an icon into a window (i.e. part of the directory hierarchy) simply copies the file represented by the icon into the window (directory) if it is not already there. This rule also applies to all non-application icons (which could be expanded into windows) *except for the trashcan*. When you drag an icon (file) into the trashcan, you aren't copying it, and you aren't deleting it either. You are basically *moving it*. You delete it by launching an application (implicitly deleting the file) or emptying the trash can (explicitly deleting the file). Moving an icon into the trash is thus a bit like moving it somewhere else on the desktop with the strange side effect that the icon (file) is now "deleteable". When I first got my Mac, it took me a while to realize what was going on with this, but I have a hunch this is more a problem for people who have used other operating systems before using a Mac. Indeed, most of the "naive" users I have seen using the Mac don't really seem to mind this at all, probably because they have an intuitive notion about what a trashcan does (you toss something in, it goes away). This notion is so strong that I can recall users who accidentally threw an icon (file) in the trash and thought it was gone until I simply "opened" the trash can and plucked it out again. The great exception to all this, of course, is putting a *disk* icon in the trash, which ejects the disk, (gets the icon off the desktop) but doesn't do anything with the files the disk contains. (Novice Mac users tend to shriek in horror when you eject their precious data disks in this manner--try it sometime! :-)) @begin(moral) Is this a consistent interface? Not really. Does intuitive necessarily mean consistent? Probably not. I have seen many computer neophytes do useful work on a Mac within five minutes of sitting down. I cannot say the same thing about most other PCs, and I certainly can't say the same thing about your average Unix box. This is the most amazing feature of the Mac. The fact that this same interface could possibly be something experts find *worth arguing about* is a tribute to people at Apple and Xerox PARC. (This is, of course, Alan Kay's real point, I think.) @end(moral) jking lowly grad student at CMU psych. dept.
sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) (03/24/88)
In article <QWFMUEy00Uo1MC008j@andrew.cmu.edu> jk3t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jonathan King) writes: >When you drag an icon (file) into the trashcan, you aren't copying it, and you >aren't deleting it either. You are basically *moving it*. You delete it by >launching an application (implicitly deleting the file) or emptying the trash >can (explicitly deleting the file). Moving an icon into the trash is thus a >bit like moving it somewhere else on the desktop with the strange side effect >that the icon (file) is now "deleteable". When I first got my Mac, it took me >a while to realize what was going on with this [ ... ] > >The great exception to all this, of course, is putting a *disk* icon in the >trash, which ejects the disk, (gets the icon off the desktop) but doesn't do >anything with the files the disk contains. [ ... ] The original Mac never let you throw disks in the trash until you had explicitly ejected them. The trash served as a way of removing the disk's icon from the desktop (which, on the 128k Mac, served 2 important purposes: it reduced clutter on the small screen, and it freed up the memory needed to remember that disk's icons, directory, etc.). This use of the trash seemed perfectly natural -- since the disk was already ejected, no one thought that throwing its icon into the trash would erase any data. The current use of the trash was introduced later, as a shortcut for eject-and-remove-from-desktop. Speaking of the old days, anyone remember the original Mac's disk copy program? The one that used screen memory to do the copy? There was this little line at the bottom of the screen that said something like "Don't worry, your screen is going to look funny for a while..." Those were the days... -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." ...!cmcl2!esquire!sbb | - David Letterman
robert@pvab.pvab.se (Robert Claeson) (03/28/88)
In article <370@esquire.UUCP>, sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) writes: > The original Mac never let you throw disks in the trash until you had > explicitly ejected them. Early versions of the Lisa allowed you to drag the hard disk to the trash can. And after that, the Lisa had forgot the disk completely. Those were the days...
merchant@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU (Peter Merchant) (03/29/88)
In article <1769@ssc-vax.UUCP>, Charles L. Ditzel writes: > It's gets even more interesting when you decide to > eject a disk by moving the *disk icon* to the *trash icon*! > This is *completely* COUNTER-INTUITIVE ... after all you just > deleted a file by dragging it to the trash. Moving the disk to the trashcan is a shortcut, much like a double-click, and is not intended to be the "proper" way to do things. One can come up with all sorts of non-intuitive shortcuts in both The Finder and various applications. I think it's preferable for all shortcuts to make some form of sense. For example, throwing the disk in the trash is a shortcut for ejecting the disk and then throwing it's hollow icon in the trash. I agree that it took me quite some time to figure out how in the world this pointing-and-clicking stuff works. But, then again, I grew up on command-line interfaces and wasn't used to the concept of dealing with pictures at all, which made everything very strange. I kept looking for the menu item that said "Erase file"... --- "One step forward, Peter Merchant (merchant@eleazar.UUCP) Two steps back..."