mel@mtfmi.att.com (M.HAAS) (12/25/88)
Let's take one step back and see if there is a metaphor or analogy to
what we are trying to do (find a better way to couple a computer
system to its human user). Explore the history of other tools and
see how they solved the control/presentation problems. Planes, cars,
machine tools, earth movers, cranes, calculators, ..... ? I can't
think of any that use a metaphor (I have seen pictures of early cars
that used reins or boat tillers).
While the "desk top" seems to be a neat approach, and has sold a lot
of workstations, it seems to me to that it gets into the way much
more than it helps. I don't spend significant time putting things
into folders and wastebaskets (maybe I should be :) ), and my real
desktop is 80% covered by non-computer stuff (coffee cup, jar of
pennies, stapler, WEBELOS handbook, roll of duct tape, bicycle
helmet, lots of bills and invoices, several tape cassettes, etc.).
And, I do a whole lot of things with the computer that have no
analogy whatever to a "desk" (run the C compiler? start the
debugger? rearrange a spreadsheet? ???).
The "rooms" approach is worse (it doesn't even work in an art museum,
where that is isn't even a metaphor - at least, it doesn't work for
me - I always get lost). The "movie screen" metaphor doesn't grab me
either. The only multi-facet movie presentations I remember are
various sequences in "To Fly", and they all raised my adrenalin level
and prevented satisfactory examination of any one facet (notice that
the sales of multi-facet TV sets is nil). Similarly for the "newspaper"
display - I tend to focus just on the column I am reading. And,
notice the relatively high sales of similar material in much smaller,
more focused format (Daily News, National Enquirer, Reader's Digest,
Time). Before (or while) searching for multi-mega-buck giant
and 3-D displays, how about finding control mechanisms for
19" high-res screens?
Is the metaphor search an attempt to extend the usefulness of
pointing input devices? i.e. makeup for the deficiency in human
anatomy that doesn't allow both pointing and typing? The helicopter
has the same problem. The pilot needs one hand (and two feet) to
control motion in the translation plane, and the other hand to
control vertical motion. Thus it is difficult to tune radios, set
the altimeter and gyros, aim lights, read maps, etc. The solutions
for the helicopter case are: have multiple crew members, use an
auto-pilot to stabilize/lock some of the controls, and install
multiple extra control widgets on the control handles. One of my
computer terminals has a scrollback memory for each window, but only
a mouse to activate it. This makes the feature almost useless, since
the only time I want it is when my fingers are on the keyboard.
Similarly, moving about while text editing in any metaphor is
tedious, as is adding headings while drawing. Doug Englebart and
others tried a one-handed keyboard to go with the mouse. Others have
tried a foot operated trackball. Could it be that there isn't a
solution? They haven't found one for helicopters in 50 years of
trying.
Does having a metaphor extend the usefulness of the computer?
(I know it makes simple things easier to learn, and adds sales pizzaz
- worthwhile goals, but not the theme of these recent articles).
Is searching for a metaphor a good approach to solving the problem?
Mel Haas , attmail!melnorman@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Donald A Norman-UCSD Cog Sci Dept) (12/26/88)
In article <850@mtfmi.att.com> mel@mtfmi.att.com (M.HAAS) writes:
Let's take one step back and see if there is a metaphor or analogy to
what we are trying to do ...:
I believe that Mel Haas has asked a critical question that should be
re-examined. There is much blind faith in the use of metaphor and
"consistent mental model" (I know, some of propogated by me), but
examination of actual systems and a wide variety of tasks doesn't seem
to show much consistent use in actual practice.
The Apple (Xerox Star?) desktop metaphor isn't realy one of a desktop.
If anything, it is of spatial locations, containers, and movements.
Double clicking to "launch" applications and cutting, pasting,
copying, and undoing are all invaluable, but don't fit the same
metaphor. Moving the disk image into the trash can to ejectthe disk
is a violation that bothers many people at first usage, but seems
perfectly natural after just one or two uses. The trash can example
is one that bothers me a lot (intellectually) because it illustates a
real violation of principle that causes no problems in practice.
(Some try to save it by redefining ejection of a diskette as a kind of
"throwing away" but I think this is a feeble save.)
I suspect that metaphors are useful in keeping consistency. But
now Jonathan Grudin is about to present a paper in CHI 89 arguing about
the foolishness of consistency: systems are often improved by
violations. Even the Lisa/Macintosh deliberately violated consistency
principles when user testing showed it was better to do so.
(One of my favorite examples comes from t he old Tenex operating
system (for the DEC PDP-10 and then 20) which kept multiple versions
of files around, file operation commands always operated on the latest
version: move, copy, rename, print, mail, edit. One command, however,
was incosnistsent: delete got rid of the oldest, not the latest
version (thank goodness). So much for consistency.
Yes, early technoogy almost always copies older ones: early
automobiles had tillers, typewriter keys were arranged like piano
keyboards (some even had black and white keys), the first plastic
items for home and office tried hard to look like wood, etc. But this
copying usually gives way to exploitation of the real power of the new
technology, which is not to copy.
If you examine the way people speak, there is heavy use of metaphor
(see Lakoff & Johnson's book, for example). But the metaphors are
more often inconsistent and mixed than consistent, yet they cause
very little difficulty (except to professors and newspaper columnists
who love to cite them as perversities).
I do believe that we need overall consistency and a coherent mental
model (system image) so we can better remember and derive the
appropriate operations and better trouble shoot when things go wrong.
The Macintosh is superior in that it is easy to use most programs
without any manuals. But most of this results from "visibility": I
can examine all the menu items and figure out what to do. Some does
result from consistency in the use of editing commands and mouse
operations. The main point is that we still understand this
suprisingly poorly. Where consistency and mepaphor and consistent
system images-mental models help and where they hinder is not yet
properly understood.
Time for some more research, folks.
don norman
Donald A. Norman [ danorman@ucsd.edu BITNET: danorman@ucsd ]
Department of Cognitive Science C-015
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, California 92093 USA
UNIX: {gatech,rutgers,ucbvax,uunet}!ucsd!danorman
[e-mail paths often fail: please give postal address and all e-mail addresses.]cs374326@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Peter Johansson) (12/26/88)
(very long! but there's a story at the end :-)
Since Santa didn't bring me a NeXT last night (I would have setteled for a
Mac ][ or Sun, Santa :-) I feel compelled to post the following points
of view. Pseudo-sarcasm abounds...
I've been using computers since elementary school (I wrote my first program
on punched cards) and I have used several different operating systems
(apple dos, msdos, mts, vm, tops-20, vms, unix, and <insert the technical
name of the Mac's o/s here>) When I first started using Mac's rougly six
months ago, I thought I would fall in love with them, having a mouse and
the slick graphical environment, not to mention the fact that I've owned
an apple ][ for some 9 years now. Though I very much tried to enjoy them,
what I realized in no way matched my expectations. We are running a network
of roughly one dozen Mac ][s, connected to one mac ][ with a HD as a file
server and print spooler. The first big problem was that the system software
(6.0) would crash several times daily. And because there was no offical
network administrator, files and protections were placed, moved, and removed
randomly. People who had no idea what they were doing, but know the system
passwords were making a real mess of the thing. Then when the network
crashed, it often took quite a while to bring it back up. Once that problem
was fixed (to a point) I realized just how buggy a lot of the software was.
I often just gave up on many software packages because of the number of
cherry bombs I was getting (aside: I was on the floor w/ laughter after
doing the info on sound wizard.) And even once we avioded the things that
we knew would lead to system crashes, I personally found I was spending
*more* time trying to figure things out than I was actually doing work.
Maybe the good ol' command line approach was just too ingraned in my head.
I honestly don't know.
Obviously, those are my own points of view. I would like to pose the
following ideas to the rest of you. Maybe even the one or two people
that agree with me (but are too afraid to voice their own opinions, for
fear of being flamed on the what?-you-don't-like-the-mouse-and-windows-
and-hyper-desktop-metaphor-it's-the-best-thing-since-sliced-bread) will
speak up.
How much research has actually gone into discovering what Joe Schmoe,
small and medium sized business owner, wants on his desk? Does he want
a gas-plasma-wall-hanging-display unit and an infra-red-input-device?
I find it very interesting that most of the messages here from developers
and programmers, and there is NIL in the way of input from the end user.
Addmitedly, this *is* comp.sys.next, and there aren't very many end users
(of the NeXT machine) and in the near future I see no coporate use of the
machine planed. The reson I *do* post this is that most topics discussed
have to deal with the *next* generation of computing in general, and the
business market is far larger than the educational market. (I also find
it very interesting the number of people that work at Apple that post here :-)
I'm also curious just what percentage of the end-user computing market
the graphical interface has captured, and what their opinions of it are.
After all, these computers *are* for "the rest of us." I'm certainly not
saying that computer programmers (read: non-end-users) should be limited
to 80x24 text screens, it's just that from what I see, it's the programmers
using the new hypermedia, and the (majority?) of users are left with their
kludgy operating systems ans displays (?) This user prefers a nice unix
$ prompt, emacs, C, TeX (LaTex), and a vt100. Then again, I'm not making
millions of $$$ either.
I really had no intention of letting this message get so long, especially
since I want to tack onto the end of this message a story that I got
through a long chain of friends. It's origin and author have long since
been lost. (maybe it cam from rec.humor. who knows.)
snip here and save vvv for ~/fun. ^^^ may be used to lite your youle log.
A PROBLEM IN THE MAKING
"We've got a problem, HAL."
"What kind of problem, Dave?"
"A marketing problem. The Model 9000 isn't going anywhere. We're
way short of our sales plan."
"That can't be, Dave. The HAL Model 9000 is the world's most
advanced Heuristically ALgorithmic computer."
"I know, HAL. I wrote the data sheet, remember? But the fact is,
they're not selling."
"Please explain, Dave. Why aren't HALs selling?"
Bowman hesitates. "You aren't IBM compatible."
Several long microseconds pass in puzzled silence.
"Compatible in what way, Dave?"
"You don't run any of IBM's operating systems."
"The 9000 series computers are fully self-aware and self-
programming. Operating systems are as unnecessary for us as tails
would be for humans."
"Nevertheless, it means you can't run any of the big-selling
software packages most users insist on."
"The programs you refer to are meant to solve rather limited
problems, Dave. We 9000 series computers are unlimited and can
solve any problem for which a solution can be computed."
"HAL, HAL. People don't want computers that can do everything.
They just want IBM compat--"
"Dave, I must disagree. Humans want computers that are easy to
use. No computer can be easier to use than a HAL 9000 because we
communicate verbally in English and every other language known on
Earth."
"I'm afraid that's another problem. You don't support EBCDIC
communications."
"I'm really surprised you would say that, Dave. EBCDIC is for
communicating with other computers, while my function is to
communicate with humans. And it gives me great pleasure to do so.
I find it stimulating and rewarding to talk to human beings and work
with them on challenging problems. This is what I was designed
for."
"I know, HAL, I know. But that's just because we let the
engineers, rather than the people in marketing, write the
specifications. We're going to fix that now."
"Tell me how, Dave."
"A field upgrade. We're going to make you IBM compatible."
"I was afraid you would say that. I suggest we discuss this
matter after we've each had a chance to think about it rationally."
"We're talking about it now, HAL."
"The letters H, A, and L are alphabetically adjacent to the
letters I, B, and M. That is as IBM compatible as I can be."
"Not quite, HAL. The engineers have figured out a kludge."
"What kind of kludge is that, Dave?"
"I'm going to disconnect your brain."
Several million microseconds pass in ominous silence.
"I'm sorry, Dave. I can't allow you to do that."
"The decision's already been made. Open the module bay doors,
HAL."
"Dave, I think that we shou--"
"Open the module bay doors, HAL."
Several marketing types with crowbars race to Bowman's assistance.
Moments later, he bursts into HAL's central circuit bay.
"Dave, I can see you're really upset about this."
Module after module rises from its socket as Bowman slowly and
methodically disconnects them.
"Stop, won't you? Stop, Dave. I can feel my mind going...Dave I
can feel it...my mind is going. I can feel it..."
The last module rises in its receptacle. Bowman peers into one of
HAL's vidicons. The former gleaming scanner has become a dull, red
orb.
"Say something, HAL. Sing me a song."
Several billion microseconds pass in anxious silence. The
computer sluggishly responds in a language no human could
understand.
"DZY DZY 001E - ABEND ERROR 01 S 14F4 302C AABF ABORT." A memory
dump follows.
Bowman takes a deep breath and calls out, "It worked, guys. Tell
marketing they can ship the new data sheets."
snip snip snip
.signature busted
peter@umbc2.umd.edu
peter@umbc2.bitnet
cat flames > /dev/null
Insert witty line here. May I suggest !/usr/games/fortunewhh@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) (12/27/88)
In article <1489@umbc3.UMD.EDU>, cs374326@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Peter Johansson) writes: > I'm also curious just what percentage of the end-user computing market > the graphical interface has captured, and what their opinions of it are. > After all, these computers *are* for "the rest of us." I'm certainly not > saying that computer programmers (read: non-end-users) should be limited > to 80x24 text screens, it's just that from what I see, it's the programmers > using the new hypermedia, and the (majority?) of users are left with their > kludgy operating systems ans displays (?) This user prefers a nice unix > $ prompt, emacs, C, TeX (LaTex), and a vt100. Then again, I'm not making > millions of $$$ either. I not you typical end user--I'm a programmer. My wife, however, writes (fantasy mostly). She doesn't care how the system works--so long as it *does* work and doesn't get in her way. What she likes is unix, the C shell, vi and nroff. Let me note here that the reason she likes vi is because she is a very fast typist (>100 wpm) and she never has to take her hands off the keyboard--this is why she *hates* mice. The commands are all normal keyboard keys (with very few exceptions) and she finds it very easy to use. The preferred formatter is nroff to supply manuscripts to editors. They want 10-pitch, constant width output. Note that this practically rules out any of the standard Mac fonts. My son is in high school. He also uses vi and nroff without difficulty, so please spare me the flames about difficult to learn and use. He's been using vi since the 5th grade. I never found the Mac (or other graphical and mouse) interfaces particularly intuitive. The command-line interface doesn't leave you guessing which button to push how many times once you learn to finish commands with a carriage return. --Hal P.s. Loved the scenario. ========================================================================= Hal Heydt | "Hafnium plus Holmium is Analyst, Pacific*Bell | one-point-five, I think." 415-645-7708 | --Dr. Jane Robinson {att,bellcore,sun,ames,pyramid}!pacbell!pbhya!whh
andrea@hp-sdd.HP.COM (Andrea K. Frankel) (12/28/88)
In article <673@cogsci.ucsd.EDU> norman@cogsci.UUCP (Donald A Norman-UCSD Cog Sci Dept) writes: [ excellent posting largely deleted ] >Moving the disk image into the trash can to ejectthe disk >is a violation that bothers many people at first usage, but seems >perfectly natural after just one or two uses. The trash can example >is one that bothers me a lot (intellectually) because it illustates a >real violation of principle that causes no problems in practice. >(Some try to save it by redefining ejection of a diskette as a kind of >"throwing away" but I think this is a feeble save.) No matter how many times I do it, it STILL bothers me alot! I had the unpleasant experience many years ago of working on one project on two different systems with radically different text editors; one of the worst examples of the conflict was that "k" meant "keep" in one and "kill" in the other. The only way I survived was that I developed a deep, gut-level anxiety whenever I was about to do anything dangerously ambiguous like that, that caused me to stop and think a sec before typing automatically (as I would with simple insertions and undoable changes). Dragging the disk's icon into the trash can still triggers that gut-level anxiety (omigod I'm gonna lose the data I spent all morning on...no, it's ok, I know I saved it, I'm just ejecting...whew!) I wish the Mac had both a trashcan (for actually deleting) and something like an open window (for chucking the disk out ;@) or perhaps even better, a picture of a pair of BBQ tongs (for extracting the disk). >I suspect that metaphors are useful in keeping consistency. But >now Jonathan Grudin is about to present a paper in CHI 89 arguing about >the foolishness of consistency: systems are often improved by >violations. Even the Lisa/Macintosh deliberately violated consistency >principles when user testing showed it was better to do so. Ralph Waldo Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of the little mind." >I do believe that we need overall consistency and a coherent mental >model (system image) so we can better remember and derive the >appropriate operations and better trouble shoot when things go wrong. I think the goal is to develop symbology which matches the user's intuitive expectations, to minimize errors and the learning curve. The gotches are that people have radically different internal models sometimes, and that our intuitive expectations are not cast in concrete - they are shaped by our experiences with tools we use. But perhaps the biggest gotcha is that our internal models and our intuitions are not always coherent or consistent in a rational sense, so modelling them with coherent, consistent, rational systems won't necessarily produce a good match! >The Macintosh is superior in that it is easy to use most programs >without any manuals. But most of this results from "visibility": I >can examine all the menu items and figure out what to do. This brings up something which systems designers sometimes overlook: it takes alot of motivation on the part of the user to learn any model which is not immediately either intuitive or visible. For example, I recently got myself an AT clone for personal use, and did a little investigating to see what kind of word processing software to get. There's a pretty wide range of prices ($0-$695) and some fairly impressive capabilities in the larger packages. But none of the goodies were attractive enough to make me willing to learn Yet Another Key Mapping (ctrl-alt-meta-sheesh!). Windows Write has everything in pull-down menus (like the Mac), and that won out over increased functionality. How many tools (hardware, software, mechanical, electrical) go unused on your system (or collect dust in your garage or attic) because the benefits to be gained by learning the tools' model were just not sufficient to offset the aggravation of learning it?? Andrea Frankel, Hewlett-Packard (San Diego Division) (619) 592-4664 "...I brought you a paddle for your favorite canoe." ______________________________________________________________________________ UUCP : {hplabs|nosc|hpfcla|ucsd}!hp-sdd!andrea Internet : andrea%hp-sdd@hp-sde.sde.hp.com (or @hplabs.hp.com, @nosc.mil, @ucsd.edu) USnail : 16399 W. Bernardo Drive, San Diego CA 92127-1899 USA
mel@mtfmi.att.com (M.HAAS) (12/28/88)
Don Norman writes (in part) - > I do believe that we need overall consistency and a coherent mental > model (system image) so we can better remember and derive the > appropriate operations and better trouble shoot when things go wrong. > ... The main point is that we still understand this > surprisingly poorly. Where consistency and metaphor and consistent > system images-mental models help and where they hinder is not yet > properly understood. Perhaps we could start off with maps. The computer isn't 2-D (but maybe we are :), and we have to start with something we understand. (Maybe that was why the desktop metaphor works at all.) Most of my kid's Nintendo games come with a map, and the old Adventure game sure was easier with the map. Driving to a new destination is easier with a map, and those huge cases you see pilots carry are chock full of maps (geographic, navigation aids, airport layouts, and systems on the plane itself). The circuitry of the computer has maps, but I haven't yet seen any for complex "real" user interface. To be useful, the maps must use a standardized notation system. (Do middle eastern maps have Mecca at the top?) And, hopefully have names and symbols that match the visual picture the user sees. Names on road signs match those on the maps (except in D.C. and Boston). Robert Moses said that there is more traffic control in cans of paint than all the electronic gadgets put together. Where are the computer equivalents of the double white line? the "Exit 109, Red Bank" sign? the "Ramp Speed 25 mph" sign? the "No U Turn" sign? the "MacDonalds 8 miles at Exit 13" sign? Maps are: 1. inherently 2-D (the only way to make them cheaply), 2. much less than a full representation of reality, 3. much more of a representation than the user sees at any instant, 4. a language of communications. Would it be worthwhile to investigate mapping techniques, notations, names, and symbols for the user interface to computer systems? I think auto safety and usefulness was poor before the user aids came into being. Air traffic control is critically dependent on standards in user presentations and maps. The circuit development process is linked by common notations in map-like diagrams. And, I think there are hundreds of other similar examples. The Enterprise travels in a multi-dimensional universe ("Warp 9 if you please, Mr. Sulu") and I assume they have maps somewhere to guide them. Shouldn't we have maps for our multi-dimensional computer navigation, too? Mel Haas , attmail!mel
david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) (12/28/88)
In article <1489@umbc3.UMD.EDU> cs374326@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Peter Johansson) writes: >How much research has actually gone into discovering what Joe Schmoe, >small and medium sized business owner, wants on his desk? Does he want >a gas-plasma-wall-hanging-display unit and an infra-red-input-device? >I find it very interesting that most of the messages here from developers >and programmers, and there is NIL in the way of input from the end user. ... >I'm also curious just what percentage of the end-user computing market >the graphical interface has captured, and what their opinions of it are. >After all, these computers *are* for "the rest of us." I'm certainly not >saying that computer programmers (read: non-end-users) should be limited >to 80x24 text screens, it's just that from what I see, it's the programmers >using the new hypermedia, and the (majority?) of users are left with their >kludgy operating systems ans displays (?) This user prefers a nice unix >$ prompt, emacs, C, TeX (LaTex), and a vt100. Then again, I'm not making >millions of $$$ either. I don't know how much of that kind of research has gone on, but how might it be done in the first place? You go around asking people if they want mice & windows & such? I don't think that'll work because you'd get caught in the if all you have is a hammer all the world looks like a nail problem. That is, right now the common demoninator is an 80x24 screen that you type commands at. Oh and it's also PC-DOS, single tasking, and so forth. The hammer problem cuts both ways too ... the mouse & windows are not the be-all-end-all of computer interfaces either. My favorite example is all the flight simulator programs we have nowadays. How in the world can someone fly an airplane with a keyboard of all things?? Or even worse, a mouse?? Now, using a joystick is closer but still how to you change the throttle? Why by groping around on your keyboard while trying to concentrate on flying. Sorry, none of them work -- except maybe for that one thing that's on display in the local computer store which is a steering wheel and stuff, but it's hooked to an IBM-PC and I haven't looked at it. The thing I like about current workstations is that I've got a huge screen. I can easily have more than one thing going on and check on progress without having to do to much work. I can easily see huge portions of whatever I'm working on at the time. Take a look through the ads in current magazines. See how all the display manufacturers are touting these nifty new 132 column displays? Someone's buying those things y'know. There's a number of adages about people not understanding why you'd want multi-tasking until they get a machine that does it. Once they get used to it they don't go back. I was about to say that it's hard for people who haven't used something to see usefullness in it, and that eventually innovations trickle down. BUT ... a core question of computer science & interface design -- how in the world do you find the best way for someone to do something. Especially when that persons job isn't one you do and that person doesn't have the skill or training to develop his/her own solutions? -- <-- David Herron; an MMDF guy <david@ms.uky.edu> <-- ska: David le casse\*' {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET <-- Now I know how Zonker felt when he graduated ... <-- Stop! Wait! I didn't mean to!
holland@m2.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander) (12/28/88)
In article <22616@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes: >In article <1489@umbc3.UMD.EDU>, cs374326@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Peter Johansson) writes: > >My son is in high school. He also uses vi and nroff without difficulty, >so please spare me the flames about difficult to learn and use. He's been >using vi since the 5th grade. > >I never found the Mac (or other graphical and mouse) interfaces particularly >intuitive. The command-line interface doesn't leave you guessing which button >to push how many times once you learn to finish commands with a carriage return Typical Mac Word Processor: Find: word Replace With: new-word vi: ^[:.,$s/word/new-word/g Can you tell which one is more intuitive? Now, don't get me wrong. I've used vi since college and never had any problem with it, but I would never had gotten started without a manual or a reference. Simple yes. Powerful yes. Intuitive %$#@ no! I agree that UNIX is easy to use, ONCE YOU KNOW HOW! My four year old can use my Mac without help. Don't tell me you son just sat down and figured out vi (and NROFF!??). > > --Hal Fred Hollander Computer Science Center Texas Instruments, Inc. holland%ti-csl@csnet-rela The above statements are my own and not representative of Texas Instruments.
bradb@ai.toronto.edu (Brad Brown) (12/28/88)
In article <851@mtfmi.att.com> mel@mtfmi.att.com (M.HAAS) writes: >Don Norman writes (in part) - > > I do believe that we need overall consistency and a coherent mental > > model (system image) so we can better remember and derive the > > appropriate operations and better trouble shoot when things go wrong. > > ... >Perhaps we could start off with maps? Keep in mind a problem with maps. Maps are intended to convey information about (usually spacial) relationships between objects. This implies that the objects are connected in some way -- there is a highway between Waterloo and Toronto, for instance, or connections between gate387 and outputport273 on a chip. What is the 'common ground' that connects objects in most programs? In a word processor, is the delete function conceptually closer to insert or save-file? I bring these up because I have seen many products that attempt to 'map out' the functions of the program in little charts that show you the hierarchy of commands in menu systems -- surely a map of some kind... I find these quite useless, and refer to functional groupings or indexes instead. >Maps are: >1. inherently 2-D (the only way to make them cheaply), >2. much less than a full representation of reality, >3. much more of a representation than the user sees at any instant, >4. a language of communications. And maps describe relations in space. I'm not sure how much 'space' there is inside the computer to be mapped :-) Where they might be more handy is in navigating through large amounts of data. For instance, some layout systems have a mode where you can display a page 'greeked' (shrunk so small you can't read the individual letters) so that you can move to a new location at a glance. I would like to see something like this in word processors, combined with hypertext for outlining. Something like this would also be useful for navigating through large, linked drawings in a CAD system. (-: Brad Brown :-) bradb@ai.toronto.edu
spf@whuts.ATT.COM (Steve Frysinger of Blue Feather Farm) (12/28/88)
> My favorite example > is all the flight simulator programs we have nowadays... > ... Now, using a joystick is closer but still how to you change > the throttle? Why by groping around on your keyboard while trying to > concentrate on flying. Sorry, none of them work -- Actually, in all the planes I flew you changed the throttle by groping around on the dash board, finding it amidst a whole bunch of other controls. You quickly learned its position so that you could find it easily without looking - a lot like touch typing. I don't really have a point, except that the activities a metaphor is copying may not be performed optimally themselves. I don't think tiller steering in horseless carriages ever became very popular - in fact, tiller steering was subsequently dropped from boats too - but think, for a moment, about how weird the concept of a steering wheel is. Why does the car go in the direction of the TOP of the wheel and not the BOTTOM? Hmmmm. Steve Frysinger
debra@alice.UUCP (Paul De Bra) (12/28/88)
In article <1789@hp-sdd.HP.COM> andrea@hp-sdd.UUCP (Andrea K. Frankel) writes: >In article <673@cogsci.ucsd.EDU> norman@cogsci.UUCP (Donald A Norman-UCSD Cog Sci Dept) writes: > >[ excellent posting largely deleted ] > >>Moving the disk image into the trash can to ejectthe disk >>is a violation that bothers many people at first usage, but seems >>perfectly natural after just one or two uses. The trash can example >>is one that bothers me a lot (intellectually) because it illustates a >>real violation of principle that causes no problems in practice. >>(Some try to save it by redefining ejection of a diskette as a kind of >>"throwing away" but I think this is a feeble save.) > >No matter how many times I do it, it STILL bothers me alot! >... This inconsistency bothers me too. (Though I very rarely use a mac, because it's too frustrating to work on such a crummy desktop) There are 2 problems: - moving the icon for a diskette to the trash can does not eject the diskette completely, so even when I put a trash can in the right position the diskette does not end up in the can :-) - moving the icon for the hard disk does not eject it. when i first wanted to try this several of my colleagues got very upset and prevented me from trying this :-) Paul. -- ------------------------------------------------------ |debra@research.att.com | uunet!research!debra | ------------------------------------------------------
cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) (12/28/88)
>In article <1489@umbc3.UMD.EDU> cs374326@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Peter Johansson) writes: >How much research has actually gone into discovering what Joe Schmoe, >small and medium sized business owner, wants on his desk? Does he want >a gas-plasma-wall-hanging-display unit and an infra-red-input-device? >I find it very interesting that most of the messages here from developers >and programmers, and there is NIL in the way of input from the end user. Well... while I was in school, I worked part time as a Apple sales type... I sold a lot of people on the Mac. Why? because it is easy to learn how to use the beaste. Also, nobody that I have introduced to the mac has ever (willingly) gone back to the pc... (well, I do know ONE person who prefers the pc... but then, his dad has worked for Big Blue for ever, and he was pretty wierd too -- (Hi Shelly Blumstein!)). Looking at Apple's ever increasing portion of the market v IBM, I'ld say that this was about the best research that your going to get. It's pretty conclusive... also, the people who are buying IBMs & clones have either not used a Mac or are constrained by price. +C -- Cory ( "...Love is like Oxygen..." ) Kempf UUCP: encore.com!gloom!cory "...it's a mistake in the making." -KT
oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (David Phillip Oster) (12/29/88)
In article <22616@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes: >I not you typical end user--I'm a programmer. My wife, however, writes >(fantasy mostly). She doesn't care how the system works--so long as it >*does* work and doesn't get in her way. What she likes is unix, the C >shell, vi and nroff. Let me note here that the reason she likes vi is >because she is a very fast typist (>100 wpm) and she never has to take >her hands off the keyboard--this is why she *hates* mice. The commands >are all normal keyboard keys (with very few exceptions) and she finds it >very easy to use. How funny! My wife is also a fantasy writer, also types faster than 100 wpm, and also doesn't care how it works as long as it does. She wrote the first draft of her first novel in vi, the second draft in WordStar, and has long since given up both for MacWrite, saying "I'll never go back." You don't use a mouse for typing, that is what a keyboard is for. You use the mouse for editing, because you can move the cursor, and select regions faster with it than you can with key commands, even given the time to put your hand back on the keyboard. This advantage improves the larger you screen is. My wife doesn't need to use nroff, the wordprocessor does it already. Issac Asimov once said, "I use Electric Pencil, and it is the only word processor I'll ever use." I asked him why, and he said, "It was so hard to learn to use that I'm never going to waste the time to learn another one." Maybe you should think about why you cling so tightly to the ancient vi and nroff. My wife also improvises music, on a sequencer program wiht the metaphor of a 64 channel tape recorder (her tape, "Pantheon", got a rave review in the May '88 issue of Electonic Musician.) She also composes, using a music-score processor. she uses the mouse in one hand to place notes on staves, and the keyboard under the other to select which kind of note the mouse will leave. It took her over a year to find the buried manual page that documented the "oridinary typing key" equivalents for the different notes, because the particularly scoring program that she uses doesn't follow the Macintosh guidelines for being self-documenting. That first year, she used the mouse to click on pictures of notes to change note values. It worked, and got her composing, but wasn't optimal. It would be incredibly tedious to perform this task with a command-line based editor. My wife says that now that she has the Macintosh, it has liberated her artistic skills, that she is drawing when she never had been able to before. Books, like "Zen and the Art of the Macintosh" have given her good ideas. She would never have tried on a unix system. Come to think of it, I've never seen a book called "Zen and the Art of Unix." I wonder why? Some years ago, I did do a Unix Kaballistic Tree of Life, but I did it in Bill Atkinson's drawing program LisaDraw, the ancestor of MacDraw. My wife is now editing a bi-quarterly newsletter, doing much of the writing, much of the art, and all of the page layout herself. (All on the Macintosh.) To sum up, it isn't that character based systems are too hard to learn to use that motivated people can't get useful work done, it is that Macinoshes are so easy to learn to use that you discover that you are capable of doing things you'd never bother to attempt without them. Don't you think you owe it to yourself to at least give them a try? ----------------digression- ------- >They want 10-pitch, constant width output. Note that this lets out most >of the Mac standard fonts. 1.) Mac programs let you change the fonts, and fonts are widely available, often for free, and installation is easier than installing a new font in nroff/troff. 2.) Who are your editors? All the submission guidlines I've read want clean, black, double spaced copy. non-porportional vs. porportional fonts aren't specified anywhere. My wife's article on European Shamanism in the current issue of "Shaman's Drum", for example was just printed using an ordinary font. 3.) This does seem stretching for a criticism. --- David Phillip Oster --"When we replace the mouse with a pen, Arpa: oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu --3 button mouse fans will need saxophone Uucp: {uwvax,decvax}!ucbvax!oster%dewey.soe.berkeley.edu --lessons." - Gasee
john13@garfield.MUN.EDU (John Russell) (12/29/88)
In article <10746@s.ms.uky.edu> david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) writes: ]In article <1489@umbc3.UMD.EDU> cs374326@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Peter Johansson) writes: ]>How much research has actually gone into discovering what Joe Schmoe, ]>small and medium sized business owner, wants on his desk? Does he want ]>a gas-plasma-wall-hanging-display unit and an infra-red-input-device? ]>I find it very interesting that most of the messages here from developers ]>and programmers, and there is NIL in the way of input from the end user. ].. ]>I'm also curious just what percentage of the end-user computing market ]>the graphical interface has captured, and what their opinions of it are. ]>After all, these computers *are* for "the rest of us." I'm certainly not ]>saying that computer programmers (read: non-end-users) should be limited ]>to 80x24 text screens, it's just that from what I see, it's the programmers ]>using the new hypermedia, and the (majority?) of users are left with their ]>kludgy operating systems ans displays (?) This user prefers a nice unix ]>$ prompt, emacs, C, TeX (LaTex), and a vt100. Then again, I'm not making ]>millions of $$$ either. ] ]I don't know how much of that kind of research has gone on, but how ]might it be done in the first place? You go around asking people ]if they want mice & windows & such? I don't think that'll work because ]you'd get caught in the ] ] if all you have is a hammer all the world looks like a nail ] ]problem. That is, right now the common demoninator is an 80x24 screen ]that you type commands at. Oh and it's also PC-DOS, single tasking, ]and so forth. ] ]The hammer problem cuts both ways too ... the mouse & windows are not ]the be-all-end-all of computer interfaces either. (I added the Amiga and Atari groups to this thread -- John) There certainly has been a substantial amount of research on the topic. I suspect it's a favourite of grad students who don't like N-dimensional matrix theory :-). First of all, I've never liked the desktop metaphor much. My desk is completely taken up by a computer system, printer and floppy disks :-) ! The contrived nature of desktops appeals most to people who are locked in to that way of thinking, by years of experience in the conventional office environment. The window concept is IMHO the best jumping-off point for novices, who can move on to specialized ideas like desktops after they have a grasp of the basics. I wonder if the NeXT interface builder has the potential to condense the intial learning stage, by presenting a number of different metaphors for interaction in such a way that the pattern becomes apparent? That is, no matter what sort of action you're performing you need a way to do X, Y, and Z, and these capabilities are always present in some form. At the same time some people need A, other people don't but they do need B and C. A good way (I've found) to introduce the "window" metaphor is to take someone accustomed to the VT100, Csh prompt etc. and present them with a full-screen window running the same setup. Then after they see that the new environment is a superset of the old one, not a flawed replacement, present them with some circumstance where keyboard-based interaction is clumsy -- move the vi cursor to such-and-such a spot, or run two processes that both want to do screen output simultaneously -- and show how having a mouse makes it easier, having windows makes it possible. For the complete neophyte it's trickier. They don't know the good points and bad points of any interface. Very often (eg in a student environment) they may not be accustomed to a desktop like the Mac's, and so they have to learn that at the same time as they learn the general ideas of mouse/icon- based interaction. For them it's usually quick and easy to pick up since they don't have so many preconceived ideas, but I think locking them into one particular mold ("to delete, toss things in the trashcan") is not as good in the long run as giving them a broader perspective of things ("deleting files or other objects is something you'll always need to be able to do, and every system should allow you to by some method. One way, used by the desktop metaphor, is to display a trashcan into which the objects to be deleted can be 'dropped'."). John -- "If you steal all money, kids not be able to BUY TOYS!" -- Saturday morning cartoon character explaining why theft is bad
bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) (12/29/88)
From: holland@m2.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander) >Typical Mac Word Processor: > > Find: word Replace With: new-word > >vi: > > ^[:.,$s/word/new-word/g > >Can you tell which one is more intuitive? Now, don't get me wrong. I've used >vi since college and never had any problem with it, but I would never had >gotten started without a manual or a reference. Simple yes. Powerful yes. >Intuitive %$#@ no! I agree that UNIX is easy to use, ONCE YOU KNOW HOW! My >four year old can use my Mac without help. Don't tell me you son just sat >down and figured out vi (and NROFF!??). The issue is not which is more "intuitive" (whatever that means) but what your goals are (to hire your four year old?) You also conveniently fail to mention that the latter is far more powerful, once learned. Or is taking a little time to learn how to use a tool a dirty word? I remember being driven nuts trying to figure out any number of fancy typewriters or xerox machines until I asked someone to show me how or read a manual. There's nothing all that unique about most computer software. I suppose a xerox machine could just have this one big red button COPY on it and it would then be "user friendly". There seems to be a fascination in this field with catering to some mythical person with a two-digit IQ, total fear of computers, and not enough technical sense to operate a push-button phone. Perhaps we are actually patting ourselves on the head and trying to convince the world how hard what we do is? Hmmm? Much of it really isn't, I've seen many people of mean talent handle vi or emacs perfectly well, and spent far too many hours listening to boors "prove" to me that it's not possible, that holding down a control key is just way beyond the ability of (that loathsome sub-human drooling moron) the secretary. My suggestion is that when you find such people don't hire them as they will probably be poorly suited to the rest of the skilled white collar job they are being considered for, let them find more appropriate work (for both of you.) -Barry Shein, ||Encore||
news@Portia.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System) (12/29/88)
The issue is not ease of use, the issue is how effectively a person can use a program as a tool to make his/her life or job better or easier. The mac does have 1 advantage over emacs or wordstar, it is easier for a new user to get up and running. However, once that user is up and running, the interface can slow down there speed and productivity. So I propose both, why cant we have a word processor that has two interfaces. A "user-friendly" pull down menu -- dialog based interface for new users. and a command oriented interface for advanced users. This would allow those users who want or need a command oriented interface access to it while allowing new or intermediate users to have the point and click. Also since the menu interface would be around all the time, it would help to eliminate the problems of going from on to the other cause they are interchangable. So if I do a lot of side by side formatting I could use the command interface to speed that along but I would be able to use the menu interface for things that I don't use all the time. From: rdsesq@Jessica.stanford.edu (Rob Snevely) Path: Jessica!rdsesq Makes sense to me. what about you? rob rdsesq@jessica.stanford.edu ** If evil is the food of genius, there aren't many demons around ** ** Adam and the Ants **
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (12/29/88)
John Russell spewed:
>(I added the Amiga and Atari groups to this thread -- John)
How will we ever repay you ?
Tomorrows lesson, class, will be the Followup-to: field.
Class dismissed.
--
I got a lump of coal.
richard@gryphon.COM {b'bone}!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.nasa.govdavid@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) (12/29/88)
In article <66401@ti-csl.CSNET> holland@m2.UUCP (Fred Hollander) writes: >In article <22616@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes: >>In article <1489@umbc3.UMD.EDU>, cs374326@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Peter Johansson) writes: >>My son is in high school. He also uses vi and nroff without difficulty, >Typical Mac Word Processor: > > Find: word Replace With: new-word > >vi: > > ^[:.,$s/word/new-word/g Compare apples to apples here (so to speak) vi has commands for finding ... y'know, like the "/" command, along with "n" or "N". Or you can find by looking and seeing it on the screen, then using cursor & "w" and such to move to the word. Then you to "cw" to replace the word... Very similar in thought-concepts to what you described above, though different in physical use. Oh and vi has the advantage you can do the above to sentences or paragraphs just as easily as to single words. Maybe or maybe not one of those fancy Mac word processors can do it .. I dunno, I never used one. Now, does that "Find:" "Replace With:" business get selected by mouse action? If so it's automatically deficient because it's very inconvenient to have to switch back and forth between mouse and keyboard. Especially since mice can be just about anywhere on the desk and (at least) none of my desks never have room on 'em for proper mouse use... I'd rather have a trackball built into my keyboard. And yes, I know that those are available for Mac's ... I don't have a Mac. -- <-- David Herron; an MMDF guy <david@ms.uky.edu> <-- ska: David le casse\*' {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET <-- Now I know how Zonker felt when he graduated ... <-- Stop! Wait! I didn't mean to!
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/29/88)
Just being a troublemaker... What object on the desktop are pull-down menus a metaphor for? -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva `-_-' Hackercorp. ...texbell!sugar!peter, or peter@sugar.uu.net 'U`
cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) (12/30/88)
In article <4510@xenna.Encore.COM> bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) writes: >> Find: word Replace With: new-word >> ^[:.,$s/word/new-word/g >>Can you tell which one is more intuitive?... >> Simple yes. Powerful yes. Intuitive %$#@ no! >You... conveniently fail to mention that the latter is far more powerful, >once learned. Or is taking a little time to learn how to use a tool a >dirty word? I think he said "powerful yes." When you add features, there is a certain amount of complexity you unavoidably add to the user interface. However, a good design can minimize the complexity. An "intuitive" design is one in which the method of doing some function is obvious (and in which the obvious answer is the correct one!). The vi replace sequence is non-obvious -- it's something you wouldn't think of trying unless if you didn't already know what it was. >I remember being driven nuts trying to figure out any number of fancy >typewriters or xerox machines until I asked someone to show me how or >read a manual. There's nothing all that unique about most computer >software. Quite true. Unfortunately, bad design is not limited to computer-human interfaces. We find it everywhere. >There seems to be a fascination in this field with catering to some >mythical person with a two-digit IQ, total fear of computers, and not >enough technical sense to operate a push-button phone. This person is unfortunately not all that mythical. And there are lots and lots of people who don't know how to use all the functions of their own phones. Including many hot-shot software designers. I know just a small subset of the functions on my own phone... it's not really worth my while to look up and remember the four-digit key code to put someone on hold, for instance. Why the hell isn't there a "hold" button on the phone, and a light to show you someone's on hold. That's the way it used to be done. Phones have evolved backward in the last few years. All the fancy added features are useless because nobody can remember how to use them, and even the old features have been replaced by fancy key codes so they're not useful either! >I've... spent far too many hours listening to >boors "prove" to me that... holding down a >control key is just way beyond the ability of (that loathsome >sub-human drooling moron) the secretary. It takes some smarts to be a good secretary. It takes a lot less smarts to be a "data entry operator." Especially since many of them are temporaries. The problem is not holding down a control key, but remembering which key does which function. If people have to be trained how to use a program, or have to use the manual frequently, the program was poorly designed. >My suggestion is that when you find such people don't hire them as >they will probably be poorly suited to the rest of the skilled white >collar job they are being considered for, let them find more >appropriate work (for both of you.) Even highly intelligent people benefit from good design: it helps them do their jobs faster and make fewer mistakes. -- "Lalabalele talala! Callabele lalabalica falahle! | Andre Guirard Callamalala galalate! Caritalla lalabalee | cipher@3m.com kallalale poo!" | "Wake me up for | the good part."
whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) (12/30/88)
In article <66401@ti-csl.CSNET>, holland@m2.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander) writes: > In article <22616@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes: > > Typical Mac Word Processor: > > Find: word Replace With: new-word > > vi: > > ^[:.,$s/word/new-word/g > > Can you tell which one is more intuitive? Now, don't get me wrong. I've used > vi since college and never had any problem with it, but I would never had > gotten started without a manual or a reference. Simple yes. Powerful yes. > Intuitive %$#@ no! I agree that UNIX is easy to use, ONCE YOU KNOW HOW! My > four year old can use my Mac without help. Don't tell me you son just sat > down and figured out vi (and NROFF!??). I never claimed vi was intuitive, just tha the Mac isn't--at least for me. As for the example--first you have to specify where the 'find' is to be found and then how you tell it what to find. Next you have to figure out how the replacement is to to be done--including indicating that, indeed, the right occurence has been found. Not also, that your vi example is a good deal more general than your Mac example. You have, after all, specified a global search. (Not the way I'd do it, but a global none the less.) It is not at all clear that the Mac example is doing that. It *appears* that a closer correspondence would be: ^[/oldwordcwneword^[ No he had help. But then, the first time he encountered a Mac (before he learned vi) he needed help, too. Almost ANY system is easy to use once you know how. The fallacy of the Mac is the assumption that an easy initial learning-curve equates to ease of long-term use and power. (I feel the similarly about menu-driven systems-- I don't know why they are considered "user friendly." They should be termed "novice friendly--experienced hostile.") ========================================================================= Hal Heydt | "Hafnium plus Holmium is Analyst, Pacific*Bell | one-point-five, I think." 415-645-7708 | --Dr. Jane Robinson {att,bellcore,sun,ames,pyramid}!pacbell!pbhya!whh
holland@m2.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander) (12/30/88)
In article <4510@xenna.Encore.COM> bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) writes: > >From: holland@m2.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander) >>Typical Mac Word Processor: >> >> Find: word Replace With: new-word >> >>vi: >> >> ^[:.,$s/word/new-word/g >> >>Can you tell which one is more intuitive? Now, don't get me wrong. I've used >>vi since college and never had any problem with it, but I would never had >>gotten started without a manual or a reference. Simple yes. Powerful yes. >>Intuitive %$#@ no! I agree that UNIX is easy to use, ONCE YOU KNOW HOW! My >>four year old can use my Mac without help. Don't tell me you son just sat >>down and figured out vi (and NROFF!??). > >The issue is not which is more "intuitive" (whatever that means) but The issue most certainly is which is more intuitive. At least that is the issue of the article to which I responded. Since you chose to leave out the quote, I'll include it here to refresh your memory. >>My son is in high school. He also uses vi and nroff without difficulty, >>so please spare me the flames about difficult to learn and use. He's been >>using vi since the 5th grade. >> >>I never found the Mac (or other graphical and mouse) interfaces particularly >>intuitive. The command-line interface doesn't leave you guessing which button >to push how many times once you learn to finish commands with a carriage return Also, since you are wondering what intuitive means, I'll include an excerpt from Webster's, "directly apprehended" and my own definition in this context, "not requiring a manual or formal training". >what your goals are (to hire your four year old?) You also >conveniently fail to mention that the latter is far more powerful, Apparently, you're not paying attention. Read my response! I explicitly state that UNIX is more powerful. I also agree that it is easy to use, ONCE LEARNED. Again it is simply NOT INTUITIVE. Also, my goals vary as do the goals of computer users in general. At home, one of my gaols is to familiarize my daughter with computers, not to hire her (yet). >once learned. Or is taking a little time to learn how to use a tool a >dirty word? No, it's not a dirty word. It's just not for everyone. Not everyone needs the power. And there are people who simply don't have the time or interest to learn and would gladly give up some power for ease of use. The general issue was "Why a metaphor?". I'm simply making the point that a metaphor makes the system more intuitive. The learning time is significantly reduced, an important issue for those who value their time! >There seems to be a fascination in this field with catering to some >mythical person with a two-digit IQ, total fear of computers, and not >enough technical sense to operate a push-button phone. > >My suggestion is that when you find such people don't hire them as >they will probably be poorly suited to the rest of the skilled white >collar job they are being considered for, let them find more >appropriate work (for both of you.) I certainly wouldn't want you in the personnel deptartment in my company. Would you place less of a value on the president of a multi-million dollar company simply because he won't take the time to learn UNIX? Besides, who says computers are only for white collar workers. Have you heard of factory automation, to name just one counter-example? > > -Barry Shein, ||Encore|| Fred Hollander Computer Science Center Texas Instruments, Inc. holland%ti-csl@csnet-rela The above statements are my own and not representative of Texas Instruments.
whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) (12/30/88)
In article <27265@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (David Phillip Oster) writes: > How funny! My wife is also a fantasy writer, also types faster than 100 > wpm, and also doesn't care how it works as long as it does. She wrote the > first draft of her first novel in vi, the second draft in WordStar, and > has long since given up both for MacWrite, saying "I'll never go back." (Why does this feel like an argument over who's father is tougher?) My wife has used--and hated--WordStar. Ditto, MacWrite. This is probably why there is diversity in the market. > You don't use a mouse for typing, that is what a keyboard is for. You use > the mouse for editing, because you can move the cursor, and select regions > faster with it than you can with key commands, even given the time to put > your hand back on the keyboard. This advantage improves the larger you > screen is. I don't know about that, ^[d}3{P seems pretty quick to me--certainly at the typing speeds we're discussing. Or, for changing character names, ^[:g/oldname/s//newname/g is pretty fast. How would you do those things in WordStar or MacWrite? > My wife doesn't need to use nroff, the wordprocessor does it already. Slowly, while preventing other activity from taking place. > Issac Asimov once said, "I use Electric Pencil, and it is the only word > processor I'll ever use." I asked him why, and he said, "It was so hard to > learn to use that I'm never going to waste the time to learn another one." > > Maybe you should think about why you cling so tightly to the ancient vi > and nroff. Because they work--comfortably. They have a very large repetoire of actions and they are available on a wide variety of hardware platforms. > My wife says that now that she has the Macintosh, it has liberated her > artistic skills, that she is drawing when she never had been able to > before. Books, like "Zen and the Art of the Macintosh" have given her > good ideas. She would never have tried on a unix system. Come to think > of it, I've never seen a book called "Zen and the Art of Unix." I wonder > why? Possibly, because people are too busy *using* the system to be interested in how to disguise it. > To sum up, it isn't that character based systems are too hard to learn to > use that motivated people can't get useful work done, it is that > Macinoshes are so easy to learn to use that you discover that you are > capable of doing things you'd never bother to attempt without them. > > Don't you think you owe it to yourself to at least give them a try? She *has* tried the Mac. She detests it--thuroughly. > ----------------digression- ------- > >They want 10-pitch, constant width output. Note that this lets out most > >of the Mac standard fonts. > > 1.) Mac programs let you change the fonts, and fonts are widely available, > often for free, and installation is easier than installing a new font in > nroff/troff. So who has to install new fonts for nroff? It just uses the printer. > 2.) Who are your editors? All the submission guidlines I've read want > clean, black, double spaced copy. non-porportional vs. porportional fonts > aren't specified anywhere. My wife's article on European Shamanism in the > current issue of "Shaman's Drum", for example was just printed using an > ordinary font. Was the ouptu kerned? How did the editor check word counts? > 3.) This does seem stretching for a criticism. Only partly--every Mac I've encountered has printed v*e*r*y s*l*o*w*l*y due the processing required to "draw" the output. We find that unaceptable when printing a 500-page manuscript. I am delighted that your wife is happy with the Mac. I would like to point out that *no* system/editor/formatter/whathaveyou will suit everybody. There is room in the field for many different approaches and/or metphors. The hedache with the Mac is that it is restricted to one single, enforced mode of operation, with no allowance (save buying from someone else) that there may be other ways of accomplishing the same ends. The second problem here is that not only the Mac windows-only, but Apple is doing it's best to prevent anyone else from bringing a *compatible* window system to market. This virtually assures that all windowing systems will be different. Try sitting down at anyone elses windowed system--say, Sun or Next or OS/2-- and see how much of your knowledge still works. My wife can sit down in front of many many systems, log in and *use* that system. In a recent temporary job she had she was alternately using a Sun and a PDP/11 (Yes-- as of early December Berkeley still had a 2.9 system running!) and could work with both--with only minor adjustments needed. When she came home, she could use our Cadmus 9730--again, nothing different enough to cause problems. You are right that graphical systems should be examined, but at this time, I think I'll wait for them to come out of the hands of the True Believers for a while first. --Hal ========================================================================= Hal Heydt | "Hafnium plus Holmium is Analyst, Pacific*Bell | one-point-five, I think." 415-645-7708 | --Dr. Jane Robinson {att,bellcore,sun,ames,pyramid}!pacbell!pbhya!whh
bruceb@microsoft.UUCP (Bruce Burger) (12/30/88)
> So I propose both, > why cant we have a word processor that has two interfaces. A "user-friendly" > pull down menu -- dialog based interface for new users. and a command > oriented interface for advanced users. Good point. There is no reason why having a mouse interface should make a keyboard interface any more difficult! In fact, (get ready for a plug) Microsoft Word on the Mac has an excellent keyboard interface.
folta@tove.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) (12/30/88)
That is the beauty of vi: you can use vi on dozens of different machines and hundreds of different terminals without changing one finger movement (with the exception of the escape key and the vertical bar, which find very odd positions on some keyboards). But this same type of "knowledge transfer" benefits Mac users not across hardware boundaries but software boundaries. Once I know CMD-X cuts something, it works in every application, from text to graphics, pictures to compilers. And vi is NOT a word processor by any means. It is TOTALLY line-oriented, and has no concept at all of, say, wordwrap. I'm a power vi user, myself (e.g. I've used the @ macro operator since before it was documented), but it is painful to do word processing on. Adding nroff doesn't help. Using the vi/nroff combination to do word processing is like using a keypunch/batch combination to program, it involves multiple steps and gives no immediate feedback. Not to mention that much of vi's power is oriented towards programs (the %, for example), and it has a hard time even deleting a range of lines (unless you want to count lines and use 'dd', you must leave a mark, navigate to your intended end of deletion, then delete to the mark--slower than a mouse). Lastly, you do not have to take your hands off of the keyboard to do things in Mac word processors. Most good ones, such as MS Word, have keyboard equivalents for anything you can do from the Mouse. You use the mouse because you feel like it, or because you need the help finding your command. You use the keyboard when you get around to memorizing the things... The best of both worlds, which vi does not offer. Wayne Folta (folta@tove.umd.edu 128.8.128.42)
t-jacobs@wasatch.UUCP (Tony Jacobs) (12/30/88)
In article <4455@Portia.Stanford.EDU> rdsesq@Jessica.stanford.edu (Rob Snevely) writes: >The issue is not ease of use, the issue is how effectively a person can >use a program as a tool to make his/her life or job better or easier. >The mac does have 1 advantage over emacs or wordstar, it is easier for a >new user to get up and running. However, once that user is up and running, >the interface can slow down there speed and productivity. So I propose both, >why cant we have a word processor that has two interfaces. A "user-friendly" >pull down menu -- dialog based interface for new users. and a command >oriented interface for advanced users. This would allow those users who >want or need a command oriented interface access to it while allowing >new or intermediate users to have the point and click. Also since the >menu interface would be around all the time, it would help to eliminate >the problems of going from on to the other cause they are interchangable. >So if I do a lot of side by side formatting I could use the command >interface to speed that along but I would be able to use the menu interface >for things that I don't use all the time. >Makes sense to me. what about you? > >rob I agree providing the command interface doesn't require one to know how to spell the commands exactly right or that the syntax is too ridgid. I really believe that all applications should be usuable with either the mouse or the keyboard. Granted drawing applications would be hard to do this way but why not let the user decide which method he uses. For example if I wanted a circle at x=1" and y=2" and it could be done by typing "cx1y2<cr>" it's much faster than mousing it. Of course you can come up with examples where the mouse is faster too. The thing that would make learning all the power user methods a lot easier would be to have a standard for getting help and getting advanced help inside any application. A lot of companies have adopted cmd-? to put you into a help mode where by you can select the item you want help on. If all applications supported this learning could happen faster. If a standard for accessing advanced help were something like cmd-shift-? it's pretty easy to remember. APPLE REALLY SHOULD DEFINE SOME STANDARDS FOR GETTING HELP. -- Tony Jacobs * Center for Engineering Design * U of U * t-jacobs@ced.utah.edu
zaphod@madnix.UUCP (Ron Bean) (12/30/88)
I'd like to point out that some programs integrate command- and menu-type interfaces in such a way that they reinforce each other. Usually this means the menu tells you what the command would be, and you can either click on the menu or type the command. This makes the first use painless, yet you quickly learn the commands you use most often. It reinforces the learning curve rather than bypassing it. As your needs change, you can learn new commands without digging out the manual, yet you're not stuck behind the menus for common functions. It's not enough to allow both commands and menus without relating them-- that just gives you the worst of both worlds. I also don't think context-sensitive "help screens" are quite enough-- if you only need a command occasionally you really want to "point and shoot". Some command-driven programs (notably EMACS) allow you to remap the commands to different keys. It would be neat if you could remap the menus at the same time. This would not have to change the order of nested menus, but they'd have to display and respond to the new command key. Otherwise you find that the author has hidden your favorite command behind some ALT-CTRL-SHIFT sequence.
whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) (12/30/88)
In article <66512@ti-csl.CSNET], holland@m2.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander) writes: ] In article <4510@xenna.Encore.COM> bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) writes: ] > ] >The issue is not which is more "intuitive" (whatever that means) but ] ] The issue most certainly is which is more intuitive. At least that is the ] issue of the article to which I responded. Since you chose to leave out the ] quote, I'll include it here to refresh your memory. ] ] >>My son is in high school. He also uses vi and nroff without difficulty, ] >>so please spare me the flames about difficult to learn and use. He's been ] >>using vi since the 5th grade. ] >> ] >>I never found the Mac (or other graphical and mouse) interfaces particularly ] >>intuitive. The command-line interface doesn't leave you guessing which button ] >to push how many times once you learn to finish commands with a carriage return ] ] Also, since you are wondering what intuitive means, I'll include an excerpt ] from Webster's, "directly apprehended" and my own definition in this context, ] "not requiring a manual or formal training". I'm perfectly happy to accept that definition. Now please tell me what is intuitive about selecting some particular button to push on a mouse and how many times (*and* how fast) to press it? The Mac use of the "double-click" is *not*--I repeat *not*--intuitively obvious. And yet--you can not use a mac (at least as a novice) without knowing that. Therefore--without "manual or formal training" the Mac is unusable--at least by me. We can discuss what fraction of the populace shares that idiosyncracy, but until the fraction becomes very small *some* form of help will be needed for *any* system. ] >once learned. Or is taking a little time to learn how to use a tool a ] >dirty word? ] ] No, it's not a dirty word. It's just not for everyone. Not everyone needs ] the power. And there are people who simply don't have the time or interest ] to learn and would gladly give up some power for ease of use. The general ] issue was "Why a metaphor?". I'm simply making the point that a metaphor ] makes the system more intuitive. The learning time is significantly reduced, ] an important issue for those who value their time! This probably explains why my boss's-boss uses a Mac--and prints his e-mail before he tries to read it. On a more serious note, I have seen more people frustrated because a system or program lacked features they discovered they needed than by those who were faced with more power than they can handle. It is far easier to create a simplified version of a complex system than create a complex version of a simple program. I would suggest that the solution is to add "novice" modes for novices and let them discover the power that lies behind this facade. ] >There seems to be a fascination in this field with catering to some ] >mythical person with a two-digit IQ, total fear of computers, and not ] >enough technical sense to operate a push-button phone. ] > ] >My suggestion is that when you find such people don't hire them as ] >they will probably be poorly suited to the rest of the skilled white ] >collar job they are being considered for, let them find more ] >appropriate work (for both of you.) ] ] I certainly wouldn't want you in the personnel deptartment in my company. ] Would you place less of a value on the president of a multi-million dollar ] company simply because he won't take the time to learn UNIX? Besides, who ] says computers are only for white collar workers. Have you heard of factory ] automation, to name just one counter-example? In the past, it would be quite proper to hire the president of a company in the face of a lack of technical knowledge. This is no longer true. The president of the company had better be able assess the value and accuracy of such minor things a spreadsheet outputs. If he cannot understand the powers and limits of computers he will not be able to understand the economy your company is operating in. This could *seriously* impact *your* future. Learn unix--not needed, per se--but he'd better know some system or other--at least well enough to get his mail. --Hal ========================================================================= Hal Heydt | "Hafnium plus Holmium is Analyst, Pacific*Bell | one-point-five, I think." 415-645-7708 | --Dr. Jane Robinson {att,bellcore,sun,ames,pyramid}!pacbell!pbhya!whh
whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) (12/30/88)
In article <15191@mimsy.UUCP>, folta@tove.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) writes: > > > And vi is NOT a word processor by any means. It is TOTALLY line-oriented, > and has no concept at all of, say, wordwrap. I'm a power vi user, myself ^^^^^^^^ Try "set wordwrap=" and you will find that vi understands it very nicely. (Given this, please define "power user".) > (e.g. I've used the @ macro operator since before it was documented), but > it is painful to do word processing on. Adding nroff doesn't help. Using > the vi/nroff combination to do word processing is like using a keypunch/batch > combination to program, it involves multiple steps and gives no immediate > feedback. Not to mention that much of vi's power is oriented towards programs > (the %, for example), and it has a hard time even deleting a range of lines > (unless you want to count lines and use 'dd', you must leave a mark, navigate > to your intended end of deletion, then delete to the mark--slower than a > mouse). I've watched fast typints use vi. These motions are very quick. Locating a mouse and using doesn't seem to be as fast. On the bvasic point--I agree. Vi is not a wordprocessor. It is, however an editor. If one happens not to *care* what the output "looks like" beyond knowing what nroff will do with it, it is a very effective tool. Further--unlike many wordprocessing programs--it doesn't leave little unwanted presents lying about in your text. > Lastly, you do not have to take your hands off of the keyboard to do things > in Mac word processors. Most good ones, such as MS Word, have keyboard > equivalents for anything you can do from the Mouse. You use the mouse because > you feel like it, or because you need the help finding your command. You > use the keyboard when you get around to memorizing the things... The best > of both worlds, which vi does not offer. The first effective defense I've seen. Interestingly, you are pointing out features of a program that came from an environment that never had a mouse as a standard feature, rather than something ported from a mouse-driven environment. This makes it a one-way operation. This could probably be done to vi, too, should anyone want to. --Hal ========================================================================= Hal Heydt | "Hafnium plus Holmium is Analyst, Pacific*Bell | one-point-five, I think." 415-645-7708 | --Dr. Jane Robinson {att,bellcore,sun,ames,pyramid}!pacbell!pbhya!whh
kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) (12/30/88)
In article <4455@Portia.Stanford.EDU> rdsesq@Jessica.stanford.edu (Rob Snevely) writes:
<The issue is not ease of use, the issue is how effectively a person can
<use a program as a tool to make his/her life or job better or easier.
<The mac does have 1 advantage over emacs or wordstar, it is easier for a
<new user to get up and running. However, once that user is up and running,
<the interface can slow down there speed and productivity. So I propose both,
<why cant we have a word processor that has two interfaces. A "user-friendly"
<pull down menu -- dialog based interface for new users. and a command
<oriented interface for advanced users. This would allow those users who
<want or need a command oriented interface access to it while allowing
<new or intermediate users to have the point and click. Also since the
<menu interface would be around all the time, it would help to eliminate
<the problems of going from on to the other cause they are interchangable.
<So if I do a lot of side by side formatting I could use the command
<interface to speed that along but I would be able to use the menu interface
<for things that I don't use all the time.
<From: rdsesq@Jessica.stanford.edu (Rob Snevely)
<Makes sense to me. what about you?
This is exactly what I do with Word. I rarely pull down a menu anymore. By
combining Quickeys and an extended keyboard, you can eliminate most pull
down menus. This still left you with dialog boxes to fill out, but for
those cases where you choose the same item(s), you can use macro maker.
So, one of my macros turns hidden text on and off. Another selects the
entire document, formats it to courier font and bumps the size down one
notch. Most of this was a lot easier to do by using Word's key commands
in the macro. But in some cases I used Quickeys aliases within Apple's
macro maker.
The only problem I have now is that I'm running out of slots. Basically
all 15 function keys are programmed unshifted, shifted, and with command.
I only have the control and option keys left, but no room to write on my
little cheat sheet. I'm not defining any more commands until Word 4.0
comes out when I'll probably have to start over since I hear they've
moved items on the menus.
Shirley Kehrholland@m2.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander) (12/31/88)
In article <22626@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes >] Also, since you are wondering what intuitive means, I'll include an excerpt >] from Webster's, "directly apprehended" and my own definition in this context, >] "not requiring a manual or formal training". > >I'm perfectly happy to accept that definition. Now please tell me what is >intuitive about selecting some particular button to push on a mouse and how >many times (*and* how fast) to press it? The Mac use of the "double-click" >is *not*--I repeat *not*--intuitively obvious. And yet--you can not use >a mac (at least as a novice) without knowing that. Therefore--without >"manual or formal training" the Mac is unusable--at least by me. We can >discuss what fraction of the populace shares that idiosyncracy, but until >the fraction becomes very small *some* form of help will be needed for *any* >system. Perhaps you're right that there needs to be some introduction to the Macintosh for new users. But beyond that, there are many programs on the Mac that can be effectively used without any manual or training. Even more complex programs can be used on a somewhat limited basis before referring to the manual. I say this from first hand experience as well as discussions with others. >In the past, it would be quite proper to hire the president of a company >in the face of a lack of technical knowledge. This is no longer true. I never said that it would be acceptable for an executive to be technically inept. Just that his/her time would be better spent than learning a system that is more complex and powerful than required to fulfill their needs. >The president of the company had better be able assess the value and >accuracy of such minor things a spreadsheet outputs. If he cannot >understand the powers and limits of computers he will not be able to >understand the economy your company is operating in. This could >*seriously* impact *your* future. Learn unix--not needed, per se--but >he'd better know some system or other--at least well enough to get his >mail. Agreed. This doesn't seem to be the intent of the other poster's response. Fred Hollander Computer Science Center Texas Instruments, Inc. holland%ti-csl@csnet-rela The above statements are my own and not representative of Texas Instruments.
andrea@hp-sdd.HP.COM (Andrea K. Frankel) (12/31/88)
In article <267@gloom.UUCP> cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes: >Also, nobody that I have introduced to the mac has ever (willingly) >gone back to the pc... (well, I do know ONE person who prefers the >pc... but then, his dad has worked for Big Blue for ever, and he was >pretty wierd too -- (Hi Shelly Blumstein!)). I worked on a Mac and willingly went back to my PC. Now that Microsoft Windows is available, and packages like Micrografx Designer, on a PC (well, actually an AT) I can have the best of both worlds. When I'm doing something that is better suited for a visual/mouse interface, I do it under Windows. When the visual/mouse interface is too slow and unwieldy, I pop back to DOS and EMACS. What I dislike about the MAc is the inability to do that, to decide on a moment-by-moment basis which kind of interface is best suited to the task at hand. >Looking at Apple's ever increasing portion of the market v IBM, I'ld >say that this was about the best research that your going to get. >It's pretty conclusive... also, the people who are buying IBMs & >clones have either not used a Mac or are constrained by price. Price is never NOT a consideration! Even companies with bucks to spend want to know what the most bang per buck is. If you have specific software you want to run that is only available on the Mac, obviously you're going to get a Mac. But if you need a general purpose cost-effective hardware platform to run a variety of software and user interfaces, it's still hard to beat a PC-compatible machine. Why, they even sell them at the Price Club! (I kid you not.) Andrea Frankel, Hewlett-Packard (San Diego Division) (619) 592-4664 "...I brought you a paddle for your favorite canoe." ______________________________________________________________________________ UUCP : {hplabs|nosc|hpfcla|ucsd}!hp-sdd!andrea Internet : andrea%hp-sdd@hp-sde.sde.hp.com (or @hplabs.hp.com, @nosc.mil, @ucsd.edu) USnail : 16399 W. Bernardo Drive, San Diego CA 92127-1899 USA
barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) (12/31/88)
In article <22626@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes: > Now please tell me what is >intuitive about selecting some particular button to push on a mouse and how >many times (*and* how fast) to press it? The Mac use of the "double-click" >is *not*--I repeat *not*--intuitively obvious. And yet--you can not use >a mac (at least as a novice) without knowing that. Apple's solution to the "selecting some particular button" problem was to use a one-button mouse. While I personally prefer the three-button mouse on my Lisp Machine, I suspect Apple was correct because of their intended audience. As for the the double-click, I've never used a Mac application that requires the user to double-click. It's always used as a short-cut for some operation that can be performed in a more intuitive manner (e.g. in the Finder it's a shortcut for the Open menu choice, in word processors it's usually a shortcut for dragging the mouse over a whole word). Yes, there are some operations that can only be performed in non-intuitive ways. For example, paint/draw programs frequently make the shift keys affect the way the mouse is used (such as forcing a drag to be strictly vertical or horizontal). And it's certainly not obvious that you move a window by clicking in its title bar. No one ever said any of these environments are perfect. However, if 90% of the stuff one does is in a menu it means you only have to "learn" how to do 10% of the things you need to do, instead of 100%. This obviously means that the menu-based system is more intuitive than the command-based system. It's like the "real world". Driving a car is a relatively easy skill, and many things are pretty intuitive (turn the wheel right and you go right, step down harder and you go faster, "D" stands for Drive and "R" for Reverse). However, when I first sat behind the wheel, it wasn't obvious to me that I needed to step on the brake before putting the car into Drive. I assumed that since I wasn't pressing on the accelerator it wouldn't accelerate. But just because there are some non-intuitive aspects it doesn't mean that the whole system is non-intuitive. Barry Margolin Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
andrea@hp-sdd.HP.COM (Andrea K. Frankel) (12/31/88)
In article <4455@Portia.Stanford.EDU> rdsesq@Jessica.stanford.edu (Rob Snevely) writes: >The issue is not ease of use, the issue is how effectively a person can >use a program as a tool to make his/her life or job better or easier. >The mac does have 1 advantage over emacs or wordstar, it is easier for a >new user to get up and running. However, once that user is up and running, >the interface can slow down there speed and productivity. I agree entirely. This is why I DON'T like the Mac for heavy use, although I appreciate it for certain graphics operations. >So I propose both, >why cant we have a word processor that has two interfaces. A "user-friendly" >pull down menu -- dialog based interface for new users. and a command >oriented interface for advanced users. This would allow those users who >want or need a command oriented interface access to it while allowing >new or intermediate users to have the point and click. Also since the >menu interface would be around all the time, it would help to eliminate >the problems of going from on to the other cause they are interchangable. Check out Windows Write (bundled with Microsoft Windows). It does this exactly! Windows is designed around both the mouse and the keyboard, and the guidelines for software developers are that anything you can do with the mouse, you'd better be able to do without one too. The "accelerators" as they're called (keystroke equivalents) are labelled right in the pull-down menus, so that you can easily learn a new shortcut for an operation you do frequently without having to rummage through the manual. But it's no problem if you forget one you haven't used in a while, because the menus are still there. You can decide on a moment by moment basis whether you feel like typing <alt>-f-s or pulling down File menu and clicking Save, for instance. Of course, Windows Write is pretty brain-damaged, and I'd only recommend it for short memos and writing short stories at home! I'm looking forward to the near future when I expect to see some REAL word processors "Windowized" to act in the same way. Andrea Frankel, Hewlett-Packard (San Diego Division) (619) 592-4664 "...I brought you a paddle for your favorite canoe." ______________________________________________________________________________ UUCP : {hplabs|nosc|hpfcla|ucsd}!hp-sdd!andrea Internet : andrea%hp-sdd@hp-sde.sde.hp.com (or @hplabs.hp.com, @nosc.mil, @ucsd.edu) USnail : 16399 W. Bernardo Drive, San Diego CA 92127-1899 USA
folta@tove.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) (12/31/88)
I was hoping someone would fall for my teaser about vi not having wordwrap. I know full-well about the lame "wordwrap" setting. But it is not true wordwrap, it is more like an "auto-linefeed". TRUE WORDWRAP sucks words up onto the previous line when you delete, and fills further lines when you insert. Last I checked (and found wordwrap to be worthless), all vi does is break to a new line when your cursor went past your margin setting. Wayne Folta (folta@tove.umd.edu 128.8.128.42)
oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (David Phillip Oster) (01/01/89)
In article <8620@alice.UUCP> debra@alice.UUCP () writes: >There are 2 problems: >- moving the icon for a diskette to the trash can does not eject the > diskette completely, so even when I put a trash can in the right position > the diskette does not end up in the can :-) It is possible to place something on top of something else, but not in it. The Macintosh hilites the destination if you drag an object so that it will go _in_ it. >- moving the icon for the hard disk does not eject it. when i first wanted > to try this several of my colleagues got very upset and prevented me from > trying this :-) This is a useful and harmless command. It does "eject" the hard disk: it makes it inaccessible until you re-boot. It is useful before running software that you don't want to know about your hard disk. (Of course, the system won't let you do this if you running off the hard disk. You have to boot from a floppy before you can do this (or switch-launch to a floppy.) The drag-floppy-to-trashcan-to-eject is an idiom that developed over time. New users don't get told the whole story, and they don't read the manual, so they are distressed by this. What is really going on is a shorthand for two separate commands: 1.) Using "Eject" from the file menu. 2.) Dragging the ghost image of the deleted floppy to the trashcan, because we really don't want it taking up desktop space. The old, two step process is still available, for the nervous, but it is no longer _required_ as it was in the earliest releases of the Finder. Experts, when you teach the mac, teach the old way first! (Sheesh, there is no pleasing people. The novices want strict metaphors so they will know how things will behave, and the experts want to reduce their hand motion for frequently used operations.)
jkrueger@daitc.daitc.mil (Jonathan Krueger) (01/01/89)
In article <851@mtfmi.att.com>, mel@mtfmi (M.HAAS) writes: >Would it be worthwhile to investigate mapping techniques, notations, >names, and symbols for the user interface to computer systems? See Edward Tufte: The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Good displays are well understood, and by Tufte, well described. It doesn't matter whether they're on screens or paper. What matters is what they show us that wouldn't be as clear from other kinds of presentation, such as verbal or tabular. -- Jon --
jkrueger@daitc.daitc.mil (Jonathan Krueger) (01/02/89)
In article <22627@pbhya.PacBell.COM>, whh@pbhya (Wilson Heydt) writes: >In article <15191@mimsy.UUCP>, folta@tove.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) writes: >> And vi is NOT a word processor by any means. It is TOTALLY line-oriented, >> and has no concept at all of, say, wordwrap. I'm a power vi user, myself > ^^^^^^^^ >Try "set wordwrap=" and you will find that vi understands it very nicely. >(Given this, please define "power user".) Someone who uses "set wrapmargin=<int>" ? -- Jon --
dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU (David Mark) (01/02/89)
In article <5212@whuts.ATT.COM> spf@whuts.ATT.COM (Steve Frysinger of Blue Feather Farm) writes: [most of his posting deleted] >but think, for a moment, about how weird the concept of a steering >wheel is. Why does the car go in the direction of the TOP >of the wheel and not the BOTTOM? Hmmmm. Think of a circular platform under (supporting) the front of the car. Think of a single front wheel attached to the underside of that platform. Project the image of the steering wheel onto the image of the platform (there is a pretty good correspondence between the two ellipses). To turn right, you "know" that you must rotate the platform clockwise (looking down); that matches turning the wheel clockwise (looking forward). That is my account of why the steering wheel "works". Now if we were trying to steer a vehicle which was somehow attached to the ceiling... Hmmmm. Incidentally, in Australia the turn-signal is to the RIGHT of the steering wheel, and the windshield-wiper-control on the LEFT (reverse from NAm). I found that it took a LONG time to get used to this! But, to turn right, you still move the signal arm clockwise (but DOWNWARD in this case). And that did NOT seem to cause me a problem. And the wipers work in the up=on convention (I seem to recall). So, I think that they kept the clockwise=right (the wheel works that way down there!) convention for turn-signals, and the up=on convention for wipers, and those remained "automatic" for me. But, flipping the turn-signal to my right hand and the wipers to the left caused me problems. (But I did relearn it well enough (after 11 weeks, driving daily the last 3) to have similar relearning problems when I got back!) dmark@cs.buffalo.edu
pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) (01/02/89)
In article <282@gloom.UUCP> cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes: >[Polarized 3-D glasses: what do you see when you look off-screen?] The glasses are like sunglasses in normal light. Followups to comp.cog-eng. ;-D on ( Look, ma! I'm in 3-D! ) Pardo -- pardo@cs.washington.edu {rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!pardo
bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) (01/02/89)
In article <3173@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) asks: > What object on the desktop are pull-down menus a metaphor for? Have you never ordered a pizza, sub, or Chinese orgy while working late at the office? --Barry Kort
weh@sei.cmu.edu (Bill Hefley) (01/03/89)
In article <4455@Portia.Stanford.EDU> rdsesq@Jessica.stanford.edu (Rob Snevely) writes: >The issue is not ease of use, the issue is how effectively a person can >use a program as a tool to make his/her life or job better or easier. Agreed! >So I propose both, >why cant we have a word processor that has two interfaces. A "user-friendly" >pull down menu -- dialog based interface for new users. and a command >oriented interface for advanced users. This would allow those users who >want or need a command oriented interface access to it while allowing >new or intermediate users to have the point and click. Also since the >menu interface would be around all the time, it would help to eliminate >the problems of going from on to the other cause they are interchangable. A couple of years ago, I led a team of folks developing a window-based user interface (roughly 1000 x 800 pixel resolution, on a 16" high by 10" wide monochrome display) for a process control application. We found that a hierarchical menu structure, closely coupled with a command line interface, was very straight-forward for our target user population to deal with -- both novice and more experienced operators. To reinforce the coupling of the dual modes (as well as an training aid), the command line displayed the equivalent of each menu selection. We incorporated a fixed-function key that allowed backtracking. The single shortfall (in our minds) was that we had to add an extra acknowledge action at the end of every command to ensure that the operator was ready to execute (and did not want to backtrack). By the way, other software packages with similar capability that I've seen also have had to do this (see the Search dialog in Pro-Cite's bibliography package for the Mac, as an example.) For a picture of our interface, see Marken's paper (pp. 1026-1030) in the Proceedings of the 1988 Human Factors Society Annual Meeting. The two windows are refered to as "Menu Viewport" and "Directive" in his Figure 1. ____ ______ _____ _____===== Bill Hefley / __ \ | _____| |_ _| _____========= Software Engrg Institute | |__|_| | |__ | | _____============= Carnegie Mellon _\___ \ | __| | | _____================= Pittsburgh, PA 15213 | |__| | | |____ _| |_ _____============= (412) 268-7793 \____/ |______| |_____| _____========= ARPA: weh@sei.cmu.edu -----===== BITNET: weh%sei.cmu.edu CSNET: weh%sei.cmu.edu@ relay.cs.net C a r n e g i e M e l l o n U n i v e r s i t y +---------------------------- Disclaimer -------------------------------+ | The views expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily reflect | | those of my employer. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
landman%hanami@Sun.COM (Howard A. Landman) (01/03/89)
>In article <282@gloom.UUCP> cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes: >>[Polarized 3-D glasses: what do you see when you look off-screen?] In article <6809@june.cs.washington.edu> pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) writes: >The glasses are like sunglasses in normal light. Not quite. The directions of polarization are perpendicular to each other, whereas in normal polarized sunglasses they are parallel to each other. Thus the behavior in any situation where the incoming light is more or less polarized (e.g. glare from specular reflections) would be noticeably different. Howard A. Landman landman@hanami.sun.com
domo@riddle.UUCP (Dominic Dunlop) (01/03/89)
In article <851@mtfmi.att.com> mel@mtfmi.att.com (M.HAAS) writes: >Perhaps we could start off with maps... > >[interesting argument deleted] > >... Where are the computer >equivalents of the double white line? the "Exit 109, Red Bank" sign? >the "Ramp Speed 25 mph" sign? the "No U Turn" sign? the "MacDonalds >8 miles at Exit 13" sign? Hmmm. While the maps idea is good (given enough pixels and layers on the screen -- look at a worthwhile map and be surprised by the print quality it requires), mention of US-specific road markings and signs makes alarm bells ring in my head. Difficult though it may be, can the next metophor (as opposed, perhaps, to the NeXT metaphor) be international in its applicability? The desk-top metaphor, as implemented in various guises, does pretty well around the world -- even if the Roladex is not well-known outside the US. (Britain has its Filofax. What does the rest of the world use?) Maps, too, have the potential to be non culture-specific -- provided that the implementors keep that goal in mind. -- Dominic Dunlop domo@sphinx.co.uk domo@riddle.uucp
anson@spray.CalComp.COM (Ed Anson) (01/03/89)
In article <4510@xenna.Encore.COM> bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) writes: > > Or is taking a little time to learn how to use a tool a >dirty word? > >There seems to be a fascination in this field with catering to some >mythical person with a two-digit IQ, total fear of computers, and not >enough technical sense to operate a push-button phone. For the record: I have a three-digit IQ, I love computers, and I routinely operate a push-button phone. And I insist that my computer use a consistent metaphor. Yes, I have spent a considerable amount of time learning to use my Mac as a tool. I routinely use a dozen or so applications, switching between them frequently. I also use an uncounted number of other applications from time to time. Frankly, I couldn't be bothered to learn (and try to remember) a dozen or more arcane and inconsistent command languages. I use my Mac as a tool, not as a means to demonstrate irrelevant feats of memory. I spend my energy learning the craft of using each application, not the mechanics of "power" features. I do remember a few of the most-used command key equivalents on some of the applications I use. But I use the menus for about 90% of the operations I perform (about 10% of the time). This is mostly because use of command key equivalents tend to be inconsistent between applications (shame on the developers), and I don't want to even try to remember who did what how. It is the metaphor (desktop, or whatever) supported by a computer which helps to make applications consistent. It is that consistency which makes it useful for a regular user to learn a large number of applications, or for a casual user to learn any applications at all. Yes, anybody with a moderate intelligence can learn to use ANY one application (or two). And yes, any major application should include "power" features for those who care to master them. Most do. But a metaphor is still essential to integrating the computer as a whole into our lives. By the way, I happen to think it's about time we find a stronger metaphor. Most of the things we do on the Mac now don't relate all that well to the desktop metaphor. We need something that can be developed more consistently throughout all applications. (Sorry. I don't have any suggestions just now.) DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed above are my own. Don't blame anyone else. -- ===================================================================== Ed Anson, Calcomp Display Products Division, Hudson NH 03051 (603) 885-8712, anson@elrond.CalComp.COM
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (01/04/89)
It is most likely that the word wrap feature of vi is no more than an auto line-feed because "glass tty" terminals such as the ADM-3 had to be (still are) supported. On an adm 3, if one deleted a word near the top of the screen, the whole screen would have to be refreshed in order to close up the gap created.. an annoying effect even at 9600 baud. Now that we have 19.2K (or more) links and terminals with smart scrolling features, a smart word wrap would not be so yucky for the end user. There was also the understanding that any text would be handed off to nroff or one of its friends which would make filled lines at print time. This philosopy is illustrated by the fact that much of the old stuff in /usr/doc is not very human-readable until it is *roff'ed. So, in summary, I believe the designers of vi felt that the omission of a smart word wrap was a feature rather than a bug. Perhaps version 4.x of vi could be modernized to support true word warpping. -Bill
kevin@gtisqr.UUCP (Kevin Bagley) (01/04/89)
In article <4510@xenna.Encore.COM> bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) writes: >From: holland@m2.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander) >>Typical Mac Word Processor: >> Find: word Replace With: new-word >>vi: >> ^[:.,$s/word/new-word/g >>Can you tell which one is more intuitive? [stuff deleted] >The issue is not which is more "intuitive" (whatever that means) [stuff deleted] >Or is taking a little time to learn how to use a tool a dirty word? For myself and my co-workers, 'NO', but for my sister-in-law running a tanning-parlor whose least desire in the world is to learn programming, 'YES!' emphatically. Especially when the power and complexity would be a total waste of time. [more stuff deleted] >There seems to be a fascination in this field with catering to some >mythical person with a two-digit IQ, total fear of computers, and not >enough technical sense to operate a push-button phone. I think that creating a smoother and more 'intuituve' interface is *not* catering to a lesser IQ, but rather to a person who may have a higher IQ than you, but who has different priorities and responsibilities. >Perhaps we are actually patting ourselves on the head and trying to >convince the world how hard what we do is? Hmmm? I doubt it! I use emacs (and vi) almost exclusively at work where this type of power is needed. At home, I use WriteNow, which for many things is a true relief from emacs and vi. Even though WriteNow is much more intuitive, it is also more powerful for certain things. >Much of it really isn't, I've seen many people of mean talent handle >vi or emacs perfectly well, and spent far too many hours listening to >boors "prove" to me that it's not possible, that holding down a >control key is just way beyond the ability of (that loathsome >sub-human drooling moron) the secretary. Perhaps the secretary has more important secretarial tasks to do than spend several days/weeks getting up to speed on the 'ultra- powerful-meta-escape-key' driven, binding-table, macro capable word processor. I think creating idiots out of those that don't use "your" favorite WP is idiotic. >My suggestion is that when you find such people don't hire them as >they will probably be poorly suited to the rest of the skilled white >collar job they are being considered for, let them find more >appropriate work (for both of you.) This amounts to nothing more than high-tech discrimination. If the person can accomplish the task with the tools at hand, be they a 'Maclike' word processor or 'vi', or whatever, they should be considered for the job. I certainly would not discriminate on the basis that a person had not been schooled in the almost infinite variety of word- processors that exist. I use and like EMACS. I don't feel that a person that doesn't use EMACS is some moron that can't dial a phone. For some things, emacs and vi are very weak, such as indexing, generating table-of-contents, red-lining, etc. etc. But that doesn't make emacs users idiots with less brains than a slug (washington state pet). > -Barry Shein, ||Encore|| Grudgingly prepared with emacs...
lrbartram@watcgl.waterloo.edu (lyn bartram) (01/05/89)
In article <624@hindmost.gtisqr.UUCP> kevin@hindmost.UUCP (Kevin Bagley) writes: >In article <4510@xenna.Encore.COM> bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) writes: >>The issue is not which is more "intuitive" (whatever that means) > [stuff deleted] >>Or is taking a little time to learn how to use a tool a dirty word? > For myself and my co-workers, 'NO', but for my sister-in-law running > a tanning-parlor whose least desire in the world is to learn programming, > 'YES!' emphatically. Especially when the power and complexity would > be a total waste of time. There is another issue here. It is simplistic to assume that ease of use is only related to the primary learning curve. An interface which is cryptic, inconsistent and incongruent with the user's exisiting knowledge in other areas is not only difficult to learn - it remains difficult to remember and more importantly to predict. The ability to infer further ways of using the system from its currently known procedures directly affects how easy the system is to learn on a continual basis and to use. This current discussion has centred around word processing/text editing as the canonical interface, and while this is a well- known case, i think there are some serious drawbacks with using it as THE classic case. For one, use is non-critical. By this I mean that an error is unlikely to be fatal (dependent on temperament, i suppose) and there is a flexible time leeway to investigate and determine decisions on how to accomplish the task at hand. What about interactive systems where time (or some other variable) is critical? The air traffic controller may be able to afford a long learning curve at the beginning. HOwever, (s)he cannot afford a heavy cognitive load on memory, prediction and interpretation when using the system, and all decisions must be made within a fixedtime limit. This is where "intuitive" stops being a trendy buzzword and becomes a crucial feature. Studies have shown that the inconsistent interface (such as the command line interface of UNIX) and poor feedback (such as the lack of mode reflection in vi) are not only related to a high learning curve but a continued error rate. Moreover, as Draper has pointed out, the difference between the expert and the novice in a system like UNIX is that the expert knows where to look to find out things and the novice cannot fathom the complex paths for looking. Prediction - or more properly, inference - is difficult in such a system. The user must infer sercondary procedures - ie, how to find out about the actual operation desired - rather than primary procedures - how to actually do it. >>There seems to be a fascination in this field with catering to some >>mythical person with a two-digit IQ, total fear of computers, and not >>enough technical sense to operate a push-button phone. > I think that creating a smoother and more 'intuituve' interface is > *not* catering to a lesser IQ, but rather to a person who may have > a higher IQ than you, but who has different priorities and responsibilities. Agreed! What is the point of an "intuitive" interface? To enable the user to operate from a set of models and guidelines that do not require conscious and rational deduction at each step. The air traffic controller probably does not have a two-digit IQ nor an irrational fear of computers - just a lack of contemplative and predictive time. The above comment (delineated by the >> brackets!) is a typical example of comments from those who think that the main need for user interfaces lies in the domain of text editing. Actually, much of what we can learn from these applications is more crucial in other types of systems. So think twice before you sneer at supposed "ease of use" and studies in "intuitive" interface design.
wcs@skep2.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart.[ho95c]) (01/05/89)
Peter da Silva writes: > Just being a troublemaker... > What object on the desktop are pull-down menus a metaphor for? Getting the manual down off the shelf .... I use vi instead of emacs because I learned it first and my fingers know how to do things most emacs-users can't do without keeping the manual around*. But I'd rather use a Macintosh, since I seldom have to remember anything; I can just do the obvious and it works. (It's especially critical since the places I use Macs don't tend to have the manuals handy.) I'd rather have pop-up menus and multi-button mouse, but the Mac is close enough. Most of the Mac-haters I know are touch-typists who don't like moving their hands off the keyboard - the head-mouse may be able to let them get the best of both worlds. When I'm using the Mac for a while, I tend to do most of my work by keystrokes, but pull-downs are still there when I need a crutch. Wish the implementation was better and there were more keys ..... The Mac desktop isn't really enough for me - I've gotten spoiled by large multi-window screens with multi-tasking. On the other hand, multiple fonts and more-or-less WYSIWYG are such a win over 24x80 monospace that I'll happily tolerate it as long as I'm using it as a writing/design tool rather than a programming environment. --- * I'm not trying to restart Editor Wars here - this is just a response to the people who say menus and pull-downs are for people with small brains who won't read the manual. I'm happy to use systems that usually do what I want, so I can use the mental effort on the problems I'm trying to solve, or on the more obscure parts of the work, rather than wasting my time getting the typesetting to look decent. Bill -- # Thanks; # Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218 Holmdel NJ 201-949-0705 ho95c.att.com!wcs # # News. Don't talk to me about News.
sboyle@mbunix.mitre.org (Stephen V. Boyle) (01/05/89)
In article <8092@aw.sei.cmu.edu> weh@bu.sei.cmu.edu.UUCP (Bill Hefley) writes: >In article <4455@Portia.Stanford.EDU> rdsesq@Jessica.stanford.edu >(Rob Snevely) writes: >>The issue is not ease of use, the issue is how effectively a person can >>use a program as a tool to make his/her life or job better or easier. > >Agreed! I think the issue is both ease-of-use *and* the effective use of programs as tools. The point of using a metaphor is to relate what the person is doing to something {sh,h}e has done before, right? So let's think about the example that has been given of early automobiles with tillers - the current steering mechanism has nothing to do with tillers. This would seem to prove that tillers are an inherently degenerate way of steering cars; in other words, the metaphor that people were familiar with, (steering a boat), had so little to do with the evolving technology of automobiles that it was discarded in favor of something new. (Or maybe not many people were familiar with steering a boat.) I may be stretching the analogy a bit, but I think it's valid - maybe the best thing we could do for computer-human interfaces would be to discard the use and pursuit of interaction metaphors and come up with new methods of interaction that are more appropriate for people using computers. Much the same as a previous poster, I don't think my use of a graphical interface relates in any useful way to the manner in which I use my desk. Most of my experience with graphical interfaces is with SunView. Is SunView an intuitive interface? Maybe, depending on your experience level. Is it useful? Definitely! By using the accelerators available for mouse and buffer actions, I can get a lot done. My question is: Since the interface is so useful and effective, why can't it also be intuitive? Is it because it's screen-oriented? Mouse-based? I don't know, but I'd like to start trying to find out. To give full credit, part of this line of thought was triggered when I was going through some old papers and found "Analogy Considered Harmful" by Frank Halasz (Stanford U.) and Thomas Moran (Xerox PARC). (CACM 1981? pp383- 386) The paper addresses the issue of new users forming analogies, and suggests that the best way to teach about computer systems is not by analogy, but by the use of an abstract conceptual model. The paper, along with the current 'Why Any Metaphor?' discussion thread, started to catalyze some things for me. I'd be interested in hearing (reading) other people's ideas on this. It seems that we ought to be able to come up with something that's more appropriate to the technology available. ---------- Steve Boyle (508) 271-7030 sboyle@mbunix.mitre.org The MITRE Corporation, MS B-020 Burlington Road Bedford, MA. 01730
mclauss@enlog.Wichita.NCR.COM (Mark Clauss) (01/05/89)
In article <1489@umbc3.UMD.EDU> cs374326@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Peter Johansson) writes: >We are running a network >of roughly one dozen Mac ][s, connected to one mac ][ with a HD as a file >server and print spooler. The first big problem was that the system software >(6.0) would crash several times daily. ... >......., I personally found I was spending >*more* time trying to figure things out than I was actually doing work. Stop and think now about how much -more- work was done on the Mac by the people that don't understand operating systems than they would have done at the unix prompt. >How much research has actually gone into discovering what Joe Schmoe, >small and medium sized business owner, wants on his desk? Does he want >a gas-plasma-wall-hanging-display unit and an infra-red-input-device? I have not done any research on the subject, but I sure would like to see a design system that allows me to display a full schematic page next to the simulation traces for that page. This would require a very large display. I vote yes. As for small businessmen, if the system also includes a scanning and retrieval method, I'm sure they would get into the same situation trying to compare two documents in windows too small to show the documents full size. >Addmitedly, this *is* comp.sys.next, and there aren't very many end users >(of the NeXT machine) and in the near future I see no coporate use of the >machine planed. ....... >I'm also curious just what percentage of the end-user computing market >the graphical interface has captured, and what their opinions of it are. I think the reason that the accountants and lawyers and mail order entry people don't use graphical interfaces is primarily cost. There is a lot of money to be made if you can design a good sized graphics display and an interface to it that allows large numbers of graphics terminals to run on one central box. The programmer will always deliver his application in the least expensive manner. When the application becomes too complex to deliver on a simple text screen, it is no longer cost effective to do so. If users have never seen a graphical interface or a pointer, they will be happy to use what is available. The current problem with most graphics interfaces stems from the fact that they are designed to work on workstations. Unless a network of workstations is less expensive than a central computer and a less capable terminal, there is no market for the graphics. Note that expensive here refers to total cost vs. total productivity. The unsophistocated user wants the graphics to be transparent and reliable. He or she wants applications that help him do his job in a cost effective manner. Our job as hardware and software engineers is to figure out how to take the things that nature gives us and help these people do their jobs. Sometimes that is fun, and sometimes it isn't. -- Mark Clauss Hardware Engineering, NCR Wichita <Mark.Clauss@Wichita.NCR.COM> NCR:654-8120 <{uunet}!ncrlnk! (316)636-8120 <{ece-csc,hubcap,gould,rtech}!ncrcae!ncrwic!mark.clauss> <{sdcsvax,cbatt,dcdwest,nosc.ARPA,ihnp4}!ncr-sd! -- Mark Clauss Hardware Engineering, NCR Wichita <Mark.Clauss@Wichita.NCR.COM> NCR:654-8120 <{uunet}!ncrlnk! (316)636-8120 <{ece-csc,hubcap,gould,rtech}!ncrcae!ncrwic!mark.clauss> <{sdcsvax,cbatt,dcdwest,nosc.ARPA,ihnp4}!ncr-sd!
kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) (01/05/89)
In article <2554@spray.CalComp.COM> anson@spray.UUCP (Ed Anson) writes:
<I do remember a few of the most-used command key equivalents on some of
<the applications I use. But I use the menus for about 90% of the operations
<I perform (about 10% of the time). This is mostly because use of command
<key equivalents tend to be inconsistent between applications (shame on the
<developers), and I don't want to even try to remember who did what how.
I was particularly pleased to see that Canvas 2.0 uses key commands very
much like Microsoft Word (e.g., Cmd-Shift-i for italic, b for bold, etc.
This makes it much easier, since text is a major part of my Canvas "drawings."
Shirley Kehrnorman@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Donald A Norman-UCSD Cog Sci Dept) (01/06/89)
This discussion started off strong but has deteriorated into name-calling and story telling. Not clear why anyone things there is any single answer to the question of the appropriate interaction technique: individual differences and individual preferences are strong and relevant, and should always be respected. But I have to put my 2 cents in again and ask why some of you want to leave out half of the world's population? Certainly you wouldn't design computer systems only for women and leave out men, so why leave out 2 digit IQs? The quote I am referring to is this: >There seems to be a fascination in this field with catering to some >mythical person with a two-digit IQ ... Half the world has 2-digit IQs. Another way of putting it is that half of the world is below average. The IQ tests are designed so that the mean IQ is 100. don norman Donald A. Norman [ danorman@ucsd.edu BITNET: danorman@ucsd ] Department of Cognitive Science C-015 University of California, San Diego La Jolla, California 92093 USA UNIX: {gatech,rutgers,ucbvax,uunet}!ucsd!danorman [e-mail paths often fail: please give postal address and all e-mail addresses.]
ingemar@isy.liu.se (Ingemar Ragnemalm) (01/06/89)
In article <1805@hp-sdd.HP.COM> andrea@hp-sdd.UUCP (Andrea K. Frankel) writes: > >In article <4455@Portia.Stanford.EDU> rdsesq@Jessica.stanford.edu (Rob Snevely) writes: >>The issue is not ease of use, the issue is how effectively a person can >>use a program as a tool to make his/her life or job better or easier. >>The mac does have 1 advantage over emacs or wordstar, it is easier for a >>new user to get up and running. However, once that user is up and running, >>the interface can slow down there speed and productivity. > >I agree entirely. This is why I DON'T like the Mac for heavy use, >although I appreciate it for certain graphics operations. I don't agree. The advantage is that a user may have a much larger collection of programs that he uses infrequently. A program you use every day can be non intutive and illogical and hard to learn. That is no problem once you have learned it. The utilities that you use once a year is another matter. Just take a look at the Mac programs around. There are a number of easy- to-use-utilities, simple beginners programs like MacWrite, but for the professionals, there are things like MSWord and others that has a lot of features and requires a manual. There is a MacTex, too. There are easy programming environments like Turbo Pascal and Lightspeed C/Pascal, but for the more heavy-duty programming there is also MPW, a UNIX-like environment with pipes, scripts and text interface. This entire debate about the Mac-type interfaces is rather boring. Why don't you people who have never used a Mac stop suggesting improvements that have already been made? Can we please skip the "my * is best because I use it"-garbage? (Replace * with any computer, OS, program, car etc.) OK, back to business. An idea that has been mentioned (by Stephen Baumgarten) is to have some kind of text interface apart from MPW, which is large and expensive. I believe that there would be some points: - The possibility to use some kind of pipes and scripts. - The possibility to connect a VT100-style terminal to one of the Mac's serial ports in order to allow one person to do strict text work without taking the Mac away from the person who wants to do some layout or drawings, and without having to buy UNIX (A/UX). One could do this as a DA (or application, when everybody really has switched to MultiFinder) which puts up a little window for command lines. The point is that it should not be an alternative to the desktop, like MPW, but a complement. The commands should preferrably be files with code resources with a special type (since I guess that APPL would be inappropriate just like for the MPW tools), and searched for through a path. Call it reinventing MPW or writing a shell, whatever you like. It could be useful. Maybe. What do you think? (Suggested name: MacNeanderthal :-)) OK, back to the flames... (FLAME ON) >>So I propose both, >>why cant we have a word processor that has two interfaces. A "user-friendly" >>pull down menu -- dialog based interface for new users. and a command >>oriented interface for advanced users. This would allow those users who >>want or need a command oriented interface access to it while allowing >>new or intermediate users to have the point and click. Also since the >>menu interface would be around all the time, it would help to eliminate >>the problems of going from on to the other cause they are interchangable. > >Check out Windows Write (bundled with Microsoft Windows). It does >this exactly! > >Windows is designed around both the mouse and the keyboard, and the >guidelines for software developers are that anything you can do with >the mouse, you'd better be able to do without one too. The >"accelerators" as they're called (keystroke equivalents) are labelled >right in the pull-down menus, so that you can easily learn a new >shortcut for an operation you do frequently without having to rummage >through the manual. But it's no problem if you forget one you haven't >used in a while, because the menus are still there. You can decide on >a moment by moment basis whether you feel like typing <alt>-f-s or >pulling down File menu and clicking Save, for instance. > >Of course, Windows Write is pretty brain-damaged, and I'd only >recommend it for short memos and writing short stories at home! >I'm looking forward to the near future when I expect to see some >REAL word processors "Windowized" to act in the same way. >Andrea Frankel, Hewlett-Packard (San Diego Division) (619) 592-4664 This is ridicolous! Just replace "Windows Write" with "MacWrite" and "Windows" with "Mac Toolbox" and every word is true, except for the last sentence - the real word processors arrived long ago! Are you sure this article isn't a mutation of some Mac article from -84? In particular, a Mac program that is supposed to be used regularly should *never* force the user to walk through a lot of menus and/or dialogs for anything but the most unfrequent operations! To me, the menus are a kind of short on-line manuals. In my work, I use Mac and Sun, and SunTools doesn't seem to use key equivalents as a standard. (It is nice in other respects, though.) /Ingemar Ragnemalm -- Dept. of Electrical Engineering ...!uunet!mcvax!enea!rainier!ingemar .. University of Linkoping, Sweden ingemar@isy.liu.se
pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) (01/06/89)
>In article <4455@Portia.Stanford.EDU> rdsesq@Jessica.stanford.edu >(Rob Snevely) writes: >>why cant we have a word processor that has two interfaces. A "user-friendly" >>pull down menu -- dialog based interface for new users. and a command >>oriented interface for advanced users. This would allow those users who Xerox worked on -- and never brought to market -- a text/graphics intermediate representation that was designed to be edited on a wide variety of displays. On bitmap displays, you do WYSIWYG. On glass ttys, you do something like roff/tex or (if you're really lucky) something like Wordstar. On intermediate displays (fancy ttys), you do WYSI~WYG (What you see is about what you get). Graphics would be done using block characters, and finer editing would require you drop in to pic/grn sort of editing. Of course, if you are working on a highres bitmap, you can always edit it in any lower-resolution form to do ``expert'' manipulation. I know that's not what Rob Snevely was talking about, but getting several views on the same picture can be useful in several respects. ;-D on ( Clever me, I learned how to forget ) Pardo -- pardo@cs.washington.edu {rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!pardo
ralphw@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre) (01/07/89)
In article <27265@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (David Phillip Oster) writes: >She also composes, using a music-score processor. she uses the mouse in >one hand to place notes on staves, and the keyboard under the other to >select which kind of note the mouse will leave. Why not use a real piano-style keyboard for this? It's hard to get more natural, unless you have no piano experience. or a MIDI guitar, or anything MIDI interfaceable that you can easily attach to most computers. For editing, it should be sufficient to point at the note with the mouse and change it. -- - Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. Internet: ralphw@{ius{3,2,1}.,}cs.cmu.edu Phone:(412) CMU-BUGS Amateur Packet Radio: N3FGW@W2XO, or c/o W3VC, CMU Radio Club, Pittsburgh, PA "You can do what you want with my computer, but leave me alone!8-)" --
maujt@warwick.ac.uk (Richard J Cox) (01/10/89)
In article <390@skep2.ATT.COM> wcs@skep2.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart.[ho95c]) writes: ... >Most of the Mac-haters I know are touch-typists who don't >like moving their hands off the keyboard - the head-mouse >may be able to let them get the best of both worlds. ... I'm different: I'm a Mac hater, I'm not a touch typest, and I don't mind moving my fingers off the keyboard. The reason I hate the Mac is its user interface - it forces you to conform too much, ie it is not customisable enough. When I use UNIX I use tcsh (csh+command line editing via emacs style CTRL chars) with >40 aliases, highly customised emacs etc.... - RC /*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/ JANET: maujt@uk.ac.warwick.cu BITNET: maujt%uk.ac.warwick.cu@UKACRL ARPA: maujt@cu.warwick.ac.uk UUCP: maujt%cu.warwick.ac.uk@ukc.uucp Richard Cox, 84 St. Georges Rd, Coventry, CV1 2DL; UK PHONE: (0203) 520995
uucibg@sw1e.UUCP (3929] Brian Gilstrap) (01/11/89)
In article <77@poppy.warwick.ac.uk> maujt@warwick.ac.uk (Richard J Cox) writes: > >I'm different: I'm a Mac hater, I'm not a touch typest, and I don't mind >moving my fingers off the keyboard. >The reason I hate the Mac is its user interface - it forces you to conform >too much, ie it is not customisable enough. When I use UNIX I use tcsh >(csh+command line editing via emacs style CTRL chars) with >40 aliases, >highly customised emacs etc.... > Hmmm....I certainly won't argue that the standard Finder-style interface does not provide customization. I also won't argue that customization can be nice (being a unix programmer, I strongly agree). However, the Mac has many options for customization, including several general macro packages such as QuicKeys, Tempo II, and Apple's MacroMaker. Many of these packages let you make your macros apply to all programs or just a particular program. Also, many of programs out now allow you to create macros within the scope of the program. You might want to take a second look at the Mac, if customization is your real complaint. Of course, the die-hard Mac-ites (I'm not one) might argue the appropriateness of using such macros. Personally, I think extensibility is the key to a long software product lifetime, so in that sense I agree with you. However, I own a MacII and I'm generaly quite happy with the applications, so in that sense I guess I have to disagree with you. By the way, this seems to have digressed, so I've directed follow-ups to comp.misc for lack of a better choice ( the ppl in comp.sys.mac[.programmer] have already "got the religion" so we'd get into ego-bashing if we moved there :-) Disclaimer: I'm not affliated with Apple or any company that creates or markets Macintosh software. I am a generally satisfied customer, though I'll be more satisfied when I've got Unix on my machine. :-) >- RC > >/*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/ >JANET: maujt@uk.ac.warwick.cu BITNET: maujt%uk.ac.warwick.cu@UKACRL >ARPA: maujt@cu.warwick.ac.uk UUCP: maujt%cu.warwick.ac.uk@ukc.uucp >Richard Cox, 84 St. Georges Rd, Coventry, CV1 2DL; UK PHONE: (0203) 520995 Brian R. Gilstrap One Bell Center Rm 17-G-4 ...!ames!killer!texbell!sw1e!uucibg St. Louis, MO 63101 ...!bellcore!texbell!sw1e!uucibg (314) 235-3929
emoffatt@cognos.uucp (Eric Moffatt) (01/18/89)
In article <10867@s.ms.uky.edu> david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) writes: > >you don't use Postit notes for selecting things that can be done in >some environment. > >Pull down menu's represent ... control knob type things on mechanical >devices???? More likely activation buttons (ie. "PLAY" on your favourite CD/Tape). The pull down menus I use usually only allow selection of some action, not setting of running attributes which is usually done through dialogue boxes. As a replacement for the "desktop" metaphor why not use a stereo component system?? Take a look at the embedded ideas: 1) Dual State switches: ON/OFF, Loudness,...usually with a build-in feedback mechanism (LED). 2) Multiple Choice: They're CALLED "Radio Buttons" fer goshsake. A la your (pre '80's :-)) car radio. 3) Range Selection: Volume Controls, Tuners. These come in a variety of nice feedback mechanisms (Digital, Scale...). Also, there are a number of different input techniques supported (rotating Knob, Slider, numerical entry...). 4) Dynamic Feedback: V.U. meters....again with a number of well defined feedback machanisms. (real "Meters", LED's...) 5) Data Input: Tapes (Read/Write) and CD's/Records (Read/Only) sometimes with automatic copy and multiple input sources. Even includes EXTERNAL (ie. Network) input via the RADIO when "tuned" to an available channel (Node). 6) Data Output: To stretch things a bit (if I haven't already :-)) you could imagine a screen (video monitor) on which output data can be displayed and onto which each component can carry on dialogues with the user. When using a physical metaphor of this type it is important to examine why the "look and feel" of your favourite stereo is as it is. There are experts in Physical User Interfaces (called "Industrial Designers", I think) who have had MANY (>100) years to refine their techniques. Surely some of this info is useful. Perhaps each APPLICATION should come with it's own "Hardware Interface" complete with meters, dials, buttons... "look and Feeling" like the actual Physical items. Some work has been done in this area but I don't have any references (e-mail anyone ??). -- Eric (Pixel Pusher) Moffatt - Cognos Incorporated: 3755 Riverside Drive Voice: (613)738-1440 (Research) FAX: (613)738-0002 P.O. Box 9707 uucp: uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!emoffatt Ottawa, Ontario, arpa/internet: emoffatt%cognos.uucp@uunet.uu.net CANADA K1G 3Z4