rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) (04/21/89)
In article <23370@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> jim@insect.berkeley.edu () writes:
+Elm 2.1 was a program I could use without a manual. When I showed it
+to my boss, he recognized it as something appropriate for our
+ADMINISTRATIVE users. Not so for v2.2. Elm is starting to feel like
+ADMINISTRATIVE users. Not so for v2.2.
I'd like to know specifically what features of elm 2.2 require a manual
that didn't in elm 2.1.
+Like ucb mail, elm seems to be falling prey to creeping-featurism,
+designed by committee. If elm is destined to become ucb mail with
+curses, goodbye!
I don't know ucb mail. So explain without saying "it's like ucbmail"
(that's not a reason) why features (tell me which specific ones) should
not be added to elm.
+For me, the litmus test for elm sanity would be a consistent key to press
+to cancel (or back-out of) the current situation. (Is is ^D, ".", "q", "i",
+or what? -- and why don't ESC or ^C work?) If a naive user guesses
+wrong, s/he can get into even worse trouble.
+... I am worried, however, that Dave Taylor's design for conceptual
+consistency is getting lost in creeping-featurism.
Actually, we *did* make the user interface *more* consistent. I get the
feeling you think it's inconsistent because it's different from what
you were used to in superficial (but salient) ways.
--
Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell UNIX/C Reusable Code Library
Email: ...![backbone]!pacbell!pbhyf!rob OR rob@pbhyf.PacBell.COM
Office: (415) 823-2417 Room 4E850O San Ramon Valley Administrative Center
Residence: (415) 827-4301 R Bar JB, Concord, California