jch@apollo.COM (Jan Hardenbergh) (08/01/88)
There are alot of very nice features in the OSF request for UI Technology.
See previous - <From: hersh@decvax.dec.com>
o Standards, Portability, Testing, Cheap, Extensibility, Completeness,
training/help facility, upward compatability, good software and
motherhood and apple pie.
o Availability of facilities for the interactive design of user interfaces;
GREAT!!! We started to spec one of these at Computervision in 1984.
The first one I heard of in the flesh was DEC's prototype at the X
conference. UI editors are like the weather, everybody talks about it
but nobody does anything.
o National Language Support, with the dieters interface get-lo-cal.
This is nice for international software or even making your
application speak Mello-speak. But the best thing about this is
the implication that the menus and error messages are not embedded
in the application. That means that "user-compatable liveware"
can modify messages and menus to make them fit into the application
environment in the most comprehensible manner. ( to "real" users )
o Support keyboard-only interactions. I think this is close to the mark.
What you really want is a language that can talk to the application
the same way the UI does. This is extremely useful for customizing
applications. It is also useful for testing and batch operations.
There are probably even some alphanumeric terminals around somewhere.
If you stipulate that you want keyboard-only interaction you will
end up with a language of some sort. But it would be cleaner if you
design it as a language. Variables, conditionals - procedures would
be too much to ask.
Now we get to the missing department.
o Ability to change the look and feel of interface with out changing
application. This could be a UIMS, could be an application controller
that is dynamically bound with the "real" application. This can be
done - it is not easy - but it can be done. The ultimate goal would
be to take an application binary off the tape and then glue on
Open Dialogue, NewWave, MacUI, OPENLOOK.NDE, OPENLOOK.X or whatever.
A good start would be the ability to tailor the UI without modifying
the application. This is very useful for large applications where
there are too many commands and too much training is needed. By
tailoring the application you can create a subset application which
will make the user much more productive. Add in the language capability
to write scripts or parameterize commands and you give the application
engineer powerful tools. It becomes like shell programming.
o Global interaction. There was not mention of a clipboard, pastebuffers
or anything. Perhaps, one could get by with clear guidelines on
usiong the X paste buffers. Still, some mention would be nice.
o A window manager. If you are specifying a look and feel you must
specify that the window manager conform to that look and feel. It
is the most visible part of the over all UI.
I've been accused of being a heretic but I did do time in UI land and
firmly believe that the ideal UI will overcome someday. I'm working on
the simpler problems in Graphics now ( long live PHIGS ). I am pretty
sure there will still be UI work when graphics gets boring. Along
the way there is the integration of PEX, UIMS & application.
I am speaking for myself and will get as many internal flames as
external. Your X(ex)UI guy - Jan Hardenbergh, Apollo Computer.
jch@apollo.com {decwrl!decvax, mit-eddie, attunix}!apollo!jch