mo@SEISMO.CSS.GOV.UUCP (05/16/87)
Date: Sat, 16 May 87 00:08:59 EDT From: mo@seismo.CSS.GOV (Mike O'Dell) Subject: My previous flame Folks, I wanted to point out that my previous message, which could easily be construed as "X-bashing," was meant rather tongue-in-cheek. I don't hate X; it has some interesting things in it and it deserves analysis and understanding, but I *do* have problems with its interface, and am still confounded as to why things meant to make the world simpler usually make it more complex. For example: I have never read a Macintosh program documentation with the intent of understanding how to make the program work. It is quite obvious given the user interface. I do read the manuals to understand the model the program uses to represent the task it performs. Sort of like knowing how to drive, but not necessarily knowing where you want to go. But the mechanics of driving are automatic. I have seen no UNIX window systems as well constructed, and frankly, X is one of the worst offenders, but SUNView doesn't win any big awards either. I am just getting into News and like what I see (but still think the mouse has too many buttons), but remain skeptical. The world is busy sorting itself out, like it usually does, but I do wish the people busily doing the sorting would keep in mind the purpose of user interfaces - to aid understanding, not to entertain or challenge the memory to remember which left-hand-chord with which right-hand-mouse-button lets me simply drag the window. Sheesh. Remember Einstein's admonition: Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler! I think there is little danger in our having oversimplified things. -Mike O'Dell
ken@rochester.ARPA (Ken Yap) (05/16/87)
Mike, I think you have just given a good argument for tailorable interfaces. Perhaps one day we will see windowing systems that allow you to bind your favourite mousing method to a function - i.e. chording, double clicking, shift+click, etc. Ken