nevin1@ihlpf.ATT.COM (00704a-Liber) (05/12/88)
[followups to comp.misc; I can't figure out where else to send it] In article <1090@mcgill-vision.UUCP> mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) writes: >In article <4624@ihlpf.ATT.COM>, nevin1@ihlpf.ATT.COM (00704a-Liber) writes: >> A universal OS (as well as a universal programming language), >> assuming that one exists, must be simple and intuitive to use. I, as >> the user, should never have to look at a manual or go to a help >> screen. >Unfortunately, what is simple and intuitive to one person isn't to >another. True, but we are moving in that direction. For instance: most people find a Mac-like windowing interface simple and intuitive (whether they like it is a differnt story; they can figure out how to use it). >> [...] if I am looking at someone else's work it should, to me, look >> like my own. >I don't expect this any sooner than I expect Turing-capable AI >programs. If they aren't going to be Turing-compatible, then what kind of AI programs do you expect? >Style is too many things, including things too subtle to >easily change. What you are asking for, in essence, is something that >looks at (say) a program, deduces what it does (as distinct from how it >does it), and re-does the same thing the way you would have done it. This is what I am expecting in the far future (3 years :-)). Right now, though, is it asking too much to have an editor indent a program the way I use indentation, or suggest that I define one keystroke for something that I do a lot that requires many keystrokes (for instance :g/^>/s//| in vi)? With current software technology, we have programmable editors. I want that to go one step further; I shouldn't have to program it; with some heuristics, AI, and the ability to study my keystrokes an editor should be able to make life a little easier for me. -- _ __ NEVIN J. LIBER ..!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1 (312) 510-6194 ' ) ) "The secret compartment of my ring I fill / / _ , __o ____ with an Underdog super-energy pill." / (_</_\/ <__/ / <_ These are solely MY opinions, not AT&T's, blah blah blah
tps@wintek.UUCP (Tim Stockman) (05/15/88)
In article <4624@ihlpf.ATT.COM>, nevin1@ihlpf.ATT.COM (00704a-Liber) writes: > A universal OS (as well as a universal programming language), > assuming that one exists, must be simple and intuitive to use. I, as > the user, should never have to look at a manual or go to a help > screen. This would be very nice if things were this simple. The real question is: How does one learn by "intuition". In the case of the Mac and other icon type systems, the user is presented with an interface that describes itself in familiar terms, like file folders, sheets of paper, and a trash can. His "intuition", in this case, is merely what he has learned to do with real file folders, real sheets of paper, and real trash cans. The point is that he only knows how to do what he has already learned to do in a real office. I'll admit that this is a good way to overcome a person's fear of computers. But if the person wants to learn how to really use the computer, he'll eventually have to acquire more knowledge than that which can be obtained from trial and error, or making obvious choices. At that point, he has to go to some type of manual (possibly on-line) or receive some type of training. That is, unless you want him to re-invent what he needs to know. (I could flame about this for a long time, because I believe that the authors of many programs and operating systems are most guilty of this, but that's another topic...) Tim Stockman ...!pur-ee!wintek