lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (03/09/88)
In article <7481@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.UUCP (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: >button. If you've got popup menus, how do you distinguish between a >click to go to an application and a menu click? I like having a >"follow-mouse" interface, instead of a "click-to-type" interface. Clearly, if you have an interface in which you activate a window just by moving over it, then you can't put mouse-sensitive areas anywhere on the screen. In this case, using 2 buttons would make sense. The Apple human interface guidelines say that moving the mouse with the button up is not supposed to do anything (such as activating a window), except possibly changing the cursor shape. It requires an explicit click on the button to activate a window. It seems to me that the mouse can get moved accidentally while typing, and that would cause windows to be activated. For me (a long-time Mac user), this would take some getting use to, but I can see how some people would prefer in order to reduce the number of clicks. >two-button mouse with no problem. Until you demonstrate that a >two-button interface (pop up menus + followmouse, or some such) can be >adequately dealt with (by that, I mean that you don't have to drive >the window manager with two hands) on a one-button mouse, the >one-button mouse will have to be considered inferior. This doesn't make sense. There is no question that the interface you describe would not work well on a machine with 1 mouse button. That doesn't make a 2-button mouse or a 2-button interface better. You would have to do an experiment with the Mac interface and the Amiga or Sun interface and see how well people perform on the same tasks (ie, selecting a menu item, copying data from 1 window to another, etc.). -- Larry Rosenstein, Object Specialist Apple Computer, Inc. 20525 Mariani Ave, MS 32E Cupertino, CA 95014 AppleLink:Rosenstein1 domain:lsr@Apple.COM UUCP:{sun,voder,nsc,decwrl}!apple!lsr
schwartz@gondor.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) (03/10/88)
In article <7602@apple.Apple.Com> lsr@apple.UUCP (Larry Rosenstein) writes: > You would have to do >an experiment with the Mac interface and the Amiga or Sun interface and see >how well people perform on the same tasks (ie, selecting a menu item, >copying data from 1 window to another, etc.). Excellent idea. A (non-scientific) observation I've made while watching users with only a little experience on Macs and Suns is that if anything can go wrong, it will. On the Mac novices constantly pull down a menu, then _Double Click_ on the item they want. Usually it works out, since when they first let up on the mouse the finder invokes the selection they want, but there is a lot of useless mouse action going on. On the Sun they have trouble with accelerators (i.e. keyboard/mouse combinations), and usually wind up just using popup menus for everything. (i.e. select the Resize option to resize a window, rather than crtl-middle mouse.) When they do this, there is less of a problem knowing which mouse button to use because a popup window gives them instructions. In the end, both systems seem to work well enough for novice users. (Clearly experts use both with no trouble.) I wonder what would happen if these users ever found out that SunView supports multiple clicks in addition to keyboard and mouse actions. :-) (Can you believe there are single, double, triple, and quadruple clicks!!) #disclaimer "I like Macs and Suns and everything else." -- Scott Schwartz | Your array may be without head or schwartz@gondor.cs.psu.edu | tail, yet it will be proof against | defeat. -- Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"
chekmate@athena.mit.edu (Adam Kao) (03/10/88)
You know, I will never understand why Apple made such a big deal about the one-button mouse. They went on and on about how much time and confusion it saves. Are they talking about during the first ten minutes of use or what? That's totally unreasonable. Even assuming people never learn which button is which (ambiclumsy?) you can't expect more than one (1) second confusion with two buttons, and two (2) seconds confusion with three. And doesn't double-clicking nullify the entire argument? Do you know _how_long_ it took me to discover double-clicking? (I'm too embarrassed to tell you.*) Okay, if someone had been there to tell me, I would've had no problem. And yes, I got used to it. But the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS APPLY TO MICE WITH MORE BUTTONS. I understand Apple wanted everything to be perfect for the novice user, but how long can you stay a novice anyway? Using two buttons isn't as hard to learn as riding a bicycle; it's more like learning how to use a door. Adam --------- *To be perfectly honest, I never did figure it out. Someone had to explain it to me. NO I'M NOT STUPID!!! Disclaimer: I'm totally prejudiced against all Apples. Any kind. Comes with the name, you know.
barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) (03/10/88)
This whole argument about the number of buttons on the mouse is silly. The Mac already has a virtual 16-button mouse. Where are all those other buttons? One of them is on the mouse itself: you can double-click (and some applications even make use of triple-clicking). The rest of them are on the keyboard: you can hold down Shift, Command, or Alt (and Control, on the new keyboards?) in order to modify the meaning of a click. Thus there are eight combinations of modifier keys and either click or double-click, making sixteen ways to click the mouse. I've used 3-button systems (Symbolics Lisp Machines and Sun Workstations) and 1-button Macs; I find them all relatively easy to use, but I have a good memory for arbitrary keystrokes (and Symbolics machines have a line at the bottom of the screen that lists what all the mouse clicks currently do). I also taught my parents, who are completely computer illiterate, how to use the Mac. In this case, I am very glad that it only has one button, as it was hard enough teaching them how to use the menus, and double-clicking was a major achievement. I can just imagine them calling me up at night to ask whether they are supposed to push the left button or the right button to use the menu. The Mac user interface is designed not to tax the memory of extremely unsophisticated users. This is the reason for the one button and the constant menu bar. Unsophisticated users should be able to do everything they want without ever having to double-click or click while holding a modifier key. MacWrite is a good example of this philosophy: double-click lets you select a word, but this is just a shortcut for click/drag; shift-click lets you select a big region without having to drag across the entire thing. MacPaint is a bad example: you need to shift-click/drag in order get constrained motion. A good analogy for all this is Emacs-style text editors compared to dedicated word processors. Word processors generally use arrow keys to move around and have lots of specialized function keys with appropriate labels; they are easy for computer-illiterate secretaries to learn. Emacs is based on memorizing only-somewhat-mnemonic control sequences. We power users tend to find the word processors extremely limiting; there's a dozen or two function keys, and that's all you can do. But a computer neophyte would find Emacs completely overwhelming. Everywhere I've been where Emacs is used, I've seen lots of Emacs wallcharts pasted above terminals. Apple didn't want people to have to post MacWrite wallcharts. Barry Margolin Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com uunet!think!barmar
steele@unc.cs.unc.edu (Oliver Steele) (03/10/88)
The story as I've heard it (most recently from a talk Mark Cutter of Apple (Mr. MacDraw) gave here) is that Apple tested its multi-button mouse (single button on mouse, modifier keys on keyboard, and multi-click) against what is now the standard (three buttons on mouse with less use of keyboard modifiers) and found that beginners found the single-physical- button much, much easier than the multi-, and that experts found both equally easy. You aren't giving up power, since you've got enough modifiers to give you virtual buttons to your hearts content as well as using location as a substitute for buttons (often clearer anyway: tool palettes instead of popup tool windows, etc.), unless you're one of those people who actually _uses_ all 3*2^4(?) buttons that some of the X window managers give you. And as far as anecdotal evidence goes: I constantly get confused about which button to use for what when I switch twixt X, Smalltalk, and playing with NeWS, and I've been mousing for 4 years and sunning for 2+ (hey! I just verbed some more verbs!) and have both motor coordination and typing skills that are above average and can switch operating systems without getting near as mixed as the mice get me. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oliver Steele ...!uunet!mcnc!unc!steele steele@cs.unc.edu "A sea urchin is the best way to comb the inside of a hairy tube." -- Peter Wolfenden
stuart@ihlpf.ATT.COM (S. D. Ericson) (03/10/88)
In article <1635@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, steele@unc.cs.unc.edu (Oliver Steele) writes: [History of Apple's mouse research..] > > And as far as anecdotal evidence goes: I constantly get confused about > which button to use for what when I switch twixt X, Smalltalk, and > playing with NeWS, and I've been mousing for 4 years and sunning for > 2+ (hey! I just verbed some more verbs!) and have both motor > coordination and typing skills that are above average and can switch > operating systems without getting near as mixed as the mice get me. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Oliver Steele ...!uunet!mcnc!unc!steele > steele@cs.unc.edu > "A sea urchin is the best way to comb the inside > of a hairy tube." -- Peter Wolfenden I couldn't agree more. I spent most of last year in a Smalltalk environment (3-button mouse) working on my master's thesis. I never could quite keep those right two buttons straight in my mind. It's not that I didn't put the time in, it was just confusing. The great advantage of the one button mouse is simplicity for EVERYONE - I consider myself a computer scientist, but I'd rather deal with the keyboard modifiers (uses both hands, too) than confusing my mouse hand like that smalltalk environment did. Oh yeah, one more thing - I posted a not earlier about Apple inventing Pull-Down menus. I posted it because so many people think that the Xerox interfaces were Pull-Down menus, when they were (primarily at least) *POP-UP* menu systems - where a special mouse button (yeah, that means you tend to need more than one button) was used to "pop-up" a menu at your current location. Apple *HAD* to have the menubar/Pull-Down menu to make the single-button mouse effective. And I, for one am GLAD they did... Stu ----- "PS/2: Yesterday's hardware today. OS/2: Yesterday's software tomorrow." -- Henry Spencer -- Stuart Ericson USnail: AT&T Bell Laboratories USENET: ...!ihnp4!ihlpf!stuart IH 6M-313 voice: (312) 979-4152 Naperville-Wheaton Rd. Naperville, Il 60566
denbeste@bgsuvax.UUCP (William C. DenBesten) (03/11/88)
I can see one way that apple could reasonably implement a multi-button
mouse. Make the second button be the same as a shift-click; the third
button could be a command-click; 4th is a option-click (where does it
end?) . Then users with older machines would still have a method of
"using" the other buttons. It would be good to make the
plain-old-click button larger than the rest, so that it would be the
one more likely to be pressed.
--
William C. DenBesten | denbeste@bgsu.edu
Dept of Computer Science | CSNET denbeste%andy.bgsu.edu@relay.cs.net
Bowling Green State University | UUCP ...!cbosgd!osu-cis!bgsuvax!denbeste
Bowling Green, OH 43403-0214 |kateley@Apple.COM (Jim Kateley) (03/11/88)
In article <3611@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> chekmate@athena.mit.edu (Adam Kao) writes: >You know, I will never understand why Apple made such a big deal about >the one-button mouse. ... > >I understand Apple wanted everything to be perfect for the novice >user, but how long can you stay a novice anyway? Using two buttons >isn't as hard to learn as riding a bicycle; it's more like learning >how to use a door. > I disagree, from a coordination and subconcious level. If you think about it, its easier for your mind to do two things with two hands vs. two things with two fingers. With a one button mouse, you never think about the mouse, you use it. With multiple button mice, you have to stop and think about what button to press next. If you do that, you probably will look at the mouse, which makes you stop as the decision comes to the front of your mind, distracting you from what you were trying to do in the first place. The modifier key/click seems (IMHO) to be more desirable since your using two hands to do two thing together, which you learn to do as a part of life. (driving a car, eating, etc.) On the other hand, I did not learn how to move one finger over a small space with accuracy, or two decide between two fingers quickly. BTW, I have used a multiple button mouse before, and the problems I had with it were along the lines I described above. -- Jim Kateley UUCP: {sun, voder, nsc, mtxinu, dual}!apple!kateley S,P,HnS! DOMAIN: kateley@apple.COM Applelink: kateley1 Disclaimer: What I say, think, or smell does not reflect any policy or stray thought by Apple Computer, Inc.
benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) (03/11/88)
In article <17702@think.UUCP>, barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) writes:
#
# This whole argument about the number of buttons on the mouse is silly.
# The Mac already has a virtual 16-button mouse. Where are all those
# other buttons? One of them is on the mouse itself: you can
# double-click (and some applications even make use of triple-clicking).
# The rest of them are on the keyboard: you can hold down Shift,
# Command, or Alt (and Control, on the new keyboards?) in order to
# modify the meaning of a click. Thus there are eight combinations of
# modifier keys and either click or double-click, making sixteen ways to
# click the mouse.
How ergononomic!! :) Seriously, the whole idea of hitting the keyboard
*and* mouse is hardly elegant. Did Apple do a study on how hitting
the keyboard and mouse is easier for novice users. :)
Think of the possibilities for all those three button mice.
# the mouse clicks currently do). I also taught my parents, who are
# completely computer illiterate, how to use the Mac. In this case, I
# am very glad that it only has one button, as it was hard enough
# teaching them how to use the menus, and double-clicking was a major
# achievement. I can just imagine them calling me up at night to ask
Here you have a very good point. Having taught people with very little
computer experience...every little nuance is a major learning experience.
Still a two button mouse could have it's uses.
Again say a two button mouse had the second key as help? Whenever the
the person was lost they could hit the second key.
# without having to drag across the entire thing. MacPaint is a bad
# example: you need to shift-click/drag in order get constrained motion.
Isn't all this dependent on how an application developer chooses to
design his or her code? Yes..i know Apple has standards they want followed
(just as Sun devoted a section in their SunView Programmer's manual to such
a standard) however people can choose to not follow the standard (such as
Interleaf on the Sun .... and Mac) .
# do. But a computer neophyte would find Emacs completely overwhelming.
# Everywhere I've been where Emacs is used, I've seen lots of Emacs
# wallcharts pasted above terminals. Apple didn't want people to have
# to post MacWrite wallcharts.
and yet what we gain in simplicity...somehow we lose in power. Imagine
a MacWrite with levels of power. So you understand the basic functions
you then can migrate to the second level. and so on ...i'm not sure this
is the answer but it gives you a pause to think about doing such things .
differently.chekmate@athena.mit.edu (Adam Kao) (03/12/88)
I don't think Jim Kateley's posting addressed my main points, namely: (1) The time & confusion saved by one button mice is insignificant (2) Double clicking generates as much confusion as two buttons (3) The time it takes to get used to multiple buttons is insignificant As I understand it, Jim Kateley is saying: (1) Multiple button mice require conscious thought to use (2) One button mice take advantage of skills we learn in everyday life, while multiple button mice force us to learn new ones. These are actually the same point, since only tasks that are unfamiliar require direct attention; the more we do something, the more natural it becomes. This is called learning. > I did not learn how to move one finger >over a small space with accuracy, or two decide between two fingers quickly. Is there anyone out there who can touch type? Anyone know how to play the piano? Or the clarinet? Granted, these are not "everyday" skills, and they take considerable time to learn. But (a) lots of people learn them anyway, and (b) a typewriter has around fifty keys, a piano has eighty-eight. A mouse has at worst three. If a user can't deal with that kind of mouse, how can he deal with the keyboard? PHILOSOPHY FLAME ON A computer is not a toaster, and if you try to give it the user-interface of a toaster you will get the functionality of a toaster. A computer is a creative tool, with far more power and potential than a piano. It is unreasonable to expect access to this kind of power without ANY learning curve. Windowing systems in general are a wonderful idea, but one-button mice are a ridiculous extreme, the farthest end of the diminishing returns curve. PHILOSOPHY FLAME OFF Apologies for going off on a tangent, but I have a lot of problems with Apple's Philosophy of Computers. If anyone wants to have a big argument about it, I welcome your Email. Adam chekmate@athena.mit.edu "Oh, look, we're not even having an argument!" "Yes we are." "No we aren't, this is just contradiction!" "No it isn't." -- Monty Python
wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu (Pierce T. Wetter) (03/12/88)
>Here you have a very good point. Having taught people with very little >computer experience...every little nuance is a major learning experience. >Still a two button mouse could have it's uses. >Again say a two button mouse had the second key as help? Whenever the >the person was lost they could hit the second key. > In my job as Mac Consultant at Tech when i've had to explain the use of the mac to newcomers they tend to become clicking maniacs clicking several times everywhere dragging things around etc. when they're only trying to throw something away. (dragging a file to the trash). If the second button was there it would be continually pressed overwhelming them with help screens. (This happens to me actually, I keep hiting the help key on my way to backspace in MS word. It's really annoying) Nice try, but no cigar. One button per hand. > ># do. But a computer neophyte would find Emacs completely overwhelming. ># Everywhere I've been where Emacs is used, I've seen lots of Emacs ># wallcharts pasted above terminals. Apple didn't want people to have ># to post MacWrite wallcharts. >and yet what we gain in simplicity...somehow we lose in power. Imagine >a MacWrite with levels of power. So you understand the basic functions >you then can migrate to the second level. and so on ...i'm not sure this >is the answer but it gives you a pause to think about doing such things . >differently. MS-Word does this. One problem is that in bozo mode there isn't a horizontal scroll bar, however you can still type beyond the right margin. The document will scroll automatically to that point, then stick there so the neophyte can't get back. Then they come ask me for help, I turn on full menus, and they think I'm a god. (What!!? Those are menus on the top Wow! -True story) Best Bozo Story -From the PC: I get a call from someone who says "I can;t find the any-key." me:"what any key" Them:"well I was formatting a disk and it said hit any key...." Me: "gurgle" Pierce wetter -The God of Mac Consulting Beware of the Turing Tar-pit in which everything is possible but nothing of interest is easy. -------------------------------------------- wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu --------------------------------------------
benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) (03/13/88)
In article <5743@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu (Pierce T. Wetter) writes:
# >Again say a two button mouse had the second key as help? Whenever the
# >the person was lost they could hit the second key.
# >
# If the second button was there it would be continually pressed overwhelming
# them with help screens. (This happens to me actually, I keep hiting the help
NO! it could be a ONE window context senstive helpmckenzie@husc2.UUCP (mckenzie) (03/15/88)
In article <1694@bgsuvax> denbeste@bgsuvax.UUCP (William C. DenBesten) writes: >I can see one way that apple could reasonably implement a multi-button >mouse. Make the second button be the same as a shift-click; the third >button could be a command-click; 4th is a option-click (where does it >end?) . Then users with older machines would still have a method of Why bother? The vast majority of computer users have two hands; hence a question for the Sun users out there: What exactly are you doing with your other hand while you twiddle multiple buttons with your mouse hand? How is a one-button plus modifier keys scheme less quick/convenient for power users than multiple mouse buttons? Just curious... David McKenzie mckenzie@husc2.UUCP
mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (03/15/88)
In article <7602@apple.Apple.Com> lsr@apple.UUCP (Larry Rosenstein) writes: <In article <7481@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.UUCP (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: <>two-button mouse with no problem. Until you demonstrate that a <>two-button interface (pop up menus + followmouse, or some such) can be <>adequately dealt with (by that, I mean that you don't have to drive <>the window manager with two hands) on a one-button mouse, the <>one-button mouse will have to be considered inferior. < <This doesn't make sense. There is no question that the interface you <describe would not work well on a machine with 1 mouse button. That doesn't <make a 2-button mouse or a 2-button interface better. You would have to do <an experiment with the Mac interface and the Amiga or Sun interface and see <how well people perform on the same tasks (ie, selecting a menu item, <copying data from 1 window to another, etc.). I should have been clearer. Inferior in this case translates to "it can't recreate my favorite environmetn, but I can recreate yours." A two-button mouse mimicing a one-button system just treats all mouse-X events identically - that way you can't hit the wrong button. Studies won't change this point. Even if you proof that everyone is always more productive with a one-button mouse, as long as there are people who prefer a two-button system, and think they are more productive with it, the ability to let them configure the system to their preferences will make that system superior. <mike -- But I'll survive, no you won't catch me, Mike Meyer I'll resist the urge that is tempting me, ucbvax!mwm I'll avert my eyes, keep you off my knee, mwm@berkeley.edu But it feels so good when you talk to me. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
pablo@polygen.uucp (Pablo Halpern) (03/16/88)
From article <1635@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, by steele@unc.cs.unc.edu (Oliver Steele): > The story as I've heard it (most recently from a talk Mark Cutter of Apple > (Mr. MacDraw) gave here) is that Apple tested its multi-button mouse > (single button on mouse, modifier keys on keyboard, and multi-click) > against what is now the standard (three buttons on mouse with less use of > keyboard modifiers) and found that beginners found the single-physical- > button much, much easier than the multi-, and that experts found both > equally easy. I bet they left a few things out of the tests. For example, I doubt they tested the usefullness of a single-button mouse + modifier keys for people that don't have use of both hands! One-handed people want to use the Mac as much as anybody and so do those of us that like to hold a phone or hold open a manual while using the computer. (I know, manuals should be bound such that they can lie open on the desk, but too may aren't.) The relatively new "easy access" init from Apple helps some, but is slow compared to a mult-button mouse. As I said in a previous posting, I like the single-button mouse interface but would welcome a three-button mouse if the second and third keys were simply mapped to modifier-button combinations. Pablo Halpern | mit-eddie \ Polygen Corp. | princeton \ !polygen!pablo (UUCP) 200 Fifth Ave. | bu-cs / Waltham, MA 02254 | stellar /
bob@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (03/20/88)
In article <1469@husc2.UUCP> mckenzie@husc2.UUCP (david mckenzie) writes: >The vast majority of computer users have two hands; hence a question >for the Sun users out there: What exactly are you doing with your >other hand while you twiddle multiple buttons with your mouse hand? >How is a one-button plus modifier keys scheme less quick/convenient >for power users than multiple mouse buttons? First off, I'm a Sun user but only rarely a SunView user. Please make a distinction between the machine and the many window systems that can run on it. In a day, I may run X10, X11, SunView, or NeWS, depending upon what I'm working on at the time. The only thing that saves me from massive confusion is that my customary editor (GNU Emacs) has native interfaces to each, that I can configure similarly. When I'm running a window system that requires or supports no modifier keys, my left hand is resting for a moment while I grope for my mouse with my right. When I'm running a window system that can support modifier keys, my left hand may be hitting zero or more of them; depending upon the application or window manager, and what menu I'm trying to get access to in the current mouse context. So, I use both schemes: multiple buttons and modifier keys, often simultaneously if it's supported. However, in the Baby's First X environment that I designed for our undergrads, the user can get along without ever knowing that the modifier keys exist, because meaningful menus are bound (with menuwm) to naked button hits in the background. The point is that if someone is so inclined, a full-featured window system on a powerful workstation can be wildly customized, to the point of being either amazingly simple to drive, or so obfuscated that, e.g., nobody else can sit down with ~bob/.menuwmrc in effect and get work done. That's OK, I like it that way just fine - it's my environment and I made it that way, and I feel constricted in a window system where I don't have that much flexibility. (The last time this came up, the person in the next cubicle, who usually drives either a Mac or NeWS, made me a bumper sticker that says "Better Living Through Complexity". :-) -- Bob Sutterfield, Department of Computer and Information Science The Ohio State University; 2036 Neil Ave. Columbus OH USA 43210-1277 bob@cis.ohio-state.edu or ...!cbosgd!osu-cis!bob
eirik@tekcrl.TEK.COM (Eirik Fuller) (03/25/88)
In article <1469@husc2.UUCP> mckenzie@husc2.UUCP (david mckenzie) writes: >In article <1694@bgsuvax> denbeste@bgsuvax.UUCP (William C. DenBesten) writes: >>I can see one way that apple could reasonably implement a multi-button >>mouse. Make the second button be the same as a shift-click; the third >>button could be a command-click; 4th is a option-click (where does it >>end?) . Then users with older machines would still have a method of > >Why bother? The vast majority of computer users have two hands; hence a >question for the Sun users out there: What exactly are you doing with your >other hand while you twiddle multiple buttons with your mouse hand? How >is a one-button plus modifier keys scheme less quick/convenient for power >users than multiple mouse buttons? Just curious... > > David McKenzie > mckenzie@husc2.UUCP So what is to stop some random (I hereby volunteer) from taking this to its logical conclusion, which says the mouse doesn't need any buttons at all? Seriously, if you want to (in effect) move mouse buttons to the keyboard, why not put all of them there? I can say this for a one button mouse: with less total buttons (including mouse buttons borrowed from the keyboard), the designers have to come up with an intrinsically better interface. For those of you who disagree, use X for a week and tell me you like holding down the left control-meta-shift-whizbang key with your right elbow to drag a window a few pixels. :-)/2 Even smalltalk has its leftShiftDown hidden tricks (and, in Tek smalltalk, rightShiftDown); makes me wonder why not do it with chording (multiple buttons), so one hand can do it? How about the other extreme: put the entire keyboard on the cursor tracking device? :-) Leaves one hand free for Fritos :-) Just don't ask me what's right; I can "drive" anything. I switched from emacs to vi a while back (no! not the editor wars!), and can still switch back and forth when necessary. I routinely switch between smalltalk and X. My favorite is debugging a smalltalk interpreter, where every mouse button event or key event stops the interpreter process (in adb). Running adb in a window on a second machine (smalltalk or X; either one works for me, though I prefer smalltalk so I have a Browser nearby), it takes two hands to drive the mice, one on the smalltalk mouse, the other to send adb commands to restart the interpreter. Reminds me of the gate scene in "The Gods Must be Crazy" :-).
gilbert@hci.hw.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) (03/29/88)
In article <1758@ssc-vax.UUCP> benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) writes: >How ergononomic!! :) Seriously, the whole idea of hitting the keyboard >*and* mouse is hardly elegant. Did Apple do a study on how hitting >the keyboard and mouse is easier for novice users. :) Being analytical here: a) hands on keyboard - homing time on mouse same for KM (Keyboard and Mouse) and M (Mouse only). Assumes can find key without looking. b) no hands on keyboard - homing time for KM more than for M (=0). So, at the keystroke level, we only loose out theoretically if the user does not have a hand on the keyboard. This need not happen, and in KM situations, it makes sense to keep your left/right hand near the keyboard. As for the novices, this sort of two-handed input can be learnt very quickly, once the keyboard layout is understood. If anything, the layout of the option/shift etc. keys is the source of many problems. Chording will add to problems if you need to be an octopus (as in some Cedar combinations). So, next time anyone designs a workstation keyboard, think about easy chording on those special keys, it could be a functional requirement. As you are always going to run out of mouse-buttons, all systems could end up using the KM approach to increase mouse-button bandwidth. -- Gilbert Cockton, Scottish HCI Centre, Heriot-Watt University, Chambers St., Edinburgh, EH1 1HX. JANET: gilbert@uk.ac.hw.hci ARPA: gilbert%hci.hw.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk UUCP: ..{backbone}!mcvax!ukc!hci!gilbert
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (03/31/88)
Don't be so quick to laugh... In article <2452@tekcrl.TEK.COM>, eirik@tekcrl.TEK.COM (Eirik Fuller) writes: > How about the other extreme: put the entire keyboard on the cursor > tracking device? :-) Leaves one hand free for Fritos :-) 1) Have you seen the number of buttons on the typical puck on your typical dedicated CAD system? 2) Have you ever heard of the Writehander. This guy invented a gadget that had 4 finger keys and 3 thumb keys that he used to completely replace the keyboard. Looked like a pregnant Mouse. Put a ball under it and there you have it. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.
andrew@ems.Ems.MN.ORG (Andrew C. Esh) (04/05/88)
Seriously, we should think about putting this discussion to rest. It is obvious we are debating a matter of opinion, and so there can be no resolution except either shutting one side up, or a fight to the death (which is a radical version of the first solution). Since neither of these are practical thru the net, we must allow each opinion to exist. Not so seriously, I have thought of a solution which would put an end to the discussion by shutting a few people up, for a few minutes, at least. I have discovered that it is much easier to use a one button mouse vs. a two button mouse if you do not have the use of your hands or feet. (I have the use of hands and feet; I do not care to explain how I discovered the following :-) CAUTION: Do not attempt this while anyone is watching! 1. Put your lips on the top of the mouse. 2. Push the button with your nose. This method would cause brain damage if attempted with a two button mouse, causing racial memory regression to the "chicken" stage, where the afflicted person clucks and pecks at small objects. A messier method which has the added advantage of being able to view the monitor while manuevering the mouse is: 1. Place your chin on top of the mouse. 2. Use your tongue to push the button. Attempting this with a two button mouse is not advised, unless you wish to lose your ability to speak clearly. ( the added dexterity could make you more popular with members of the appropriate sex, though) Just thought I'd add my two cents. Happy mousing! (This message was composed entirely without using my hands, or the keyboard. Wow, do I love this Mac user interface!) - Andrew P.S. This is what happens when I roll head on the keyboard: wsea./gfttrvdc5fdrttgovvbb jmm ,l,kmcdvrtgvc ldslo; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "When all else fails, get wierd. It will give you a mental break, and confuse the opposition" - somebody famouse -- Andrew C. Esh DOMAIN: andrew@ems.MN.ORG APPLELINK: D0492 EMS/McGraw-Hill UUCP: ihnp4!meccts!ems!andrew AT&T: (612) 829-8200
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (04/06/88)
In article ... gilbert@hci.hw.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes: > Being analytical here: > a) hands on keyboard - homing time on mouse same for KM > (Keyboard and Mouse) and M (Mouse only). Assumes can find > key without looking. i.e... assumes touch typist. > b) no hands on keyboard - homing time for KM more than for M (=0). > So, at the keystroke level, we only loose out theoretically if the user > does not have a hand on the keyboard. For a lot of stuff I do on my Amiga I shove the keyboard into the cute little keyboard garage under the CPU and use the extra desk space to allow finer control of the mouse. So... not only may the user not have his or her hand on the keyboard, but the keyboard may not even be available. I recall reading that at one time at PARC they were having keyboard problems, and were doing all their work cutting and pasting with the mouse. > As you are always going to run out of mouse-buttons, all systems could > end up using the KM approach to increase mouse-button bandwidth. Why are you always going to run out of mouse-buttons? -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.
fish%kzin.utah.edu.uucp@utah-gr.UUCP (Russ Fish) (04/07/88)
The idea of putting a one-handed keyboard on a mouse has already occurred to Sam Drake, a Mechanical Engineering professor here who works with our Alpha_1 geometric modeling system. I saw him building prototype injection moulds last year. Getting the human factors right is tough. He was using 4 buttons for the fingers and a pair of shift buttons for the thumb (I think) on a vaguely hemispherical mouse housing. Send mail to drake@gr.utah.edu to inquire about production models. He might be interested in building some. -Russ
greggy@infmx.UUCP (greg yachuk) (04/16/88)
In article <2432@utah-gr.UUCP>, fish%kzin.utah.edu.uucp@utah-gr.UUCP (Russ Fish) writes: > > The idea of putting a one-handed keyboard on a mouse has already occurred to > Sam Drake, a Mechanical Engineering professor here who works with our Alpha_1 > geometric modeling system. I saw him building prototype injection moulds last > year. > > Getting the human factors right is tough. He was using 4 buttons for the > fingers and a pair of shift buttons for the thumb (I think) on a vaguely > hemispherical mouse housing. About ten years ago (while I was still a student) I worked for a term at a Grad School for Educational Studies (OISE in Toronto). One day, one of the researchers brought in a hemishperical device called a "Write-hander". It was a keyboard replacement for one-handed people. It came in both left and right-handed models. It had (I think) three buttons per finger plus two buttons for the thumb. It used one-, two-, and three-button combinations to cover the entire keyboard character set. It was an actual-honest-to-god commercial product, but I have never seen (nor heard of) it again. Greg Yachuk Informix Software Inc., Menlo Park, CA (415) 322-4100 {uunet,pyramid}!infmx!greggy !yes, I chose that login myself, wazit tooya? So, like, uh, where do you guys get all these way cool .sig's, anyways?
Eric_Shockwave-Rider_Larson@cup.portal.com (04/18/88)
Actually, the principal of using a small number of keys to represent the alphabet (and english language) has been well worked out in court stenographer's machines. All you need to do is miniaturize one of those, and mount it on a mouse! <<<<Eric Larson>>>> No Quotation!
lyndon@ncc.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) (04/19/88)
In article <4565@cup.portal.com> Eric_Shockwave-Rider_Larson@cup.portal.com writes: >Actually, the principal of using a small number of keys to >represent the alphabet (and english language) has been well >worked out in court stenographer's machines. All you need >to do is miniaturize one of those, and mount it on a mouse! It's not quite that simple (unfortunately). Each key on the steno machine represents an english phonetic. Each "word" is composed using one or more of these. Therefore, most words require the operator to press three or more keys simultaneously. You also have the problem of translating the resulting steno into english. This requires a translation dictionary for each operator. These dictionaries tend to be quite large (large being anywhere from one to three megabytes for the average reporter who has been working in the field for a year or more). Also, the translation process is context sensitive in many cases, resulting in the need for operator intervention in a number of cases. The system is good for "batch" data entry (we have reporters on staff who can key 250 words/minute) but it will need to be reworked for "interactive" applications. -- {alberta,telebit,utzoo,uunet}!ncc!lyndon lyndon@Nexus.CA
lewisd@homxc.UUCP (David Lewis) (04/19/88)
In article <147@infmx.UUCP<, greggy@infmx.UUCP (greg yachuk) writes: < In article <2432@utah-gr.UUCP>, fish%kzin.utah.edu.uucp@utah-gr.UUCP (Russ Fish) writes: < > < > The idea of putting a one-handed keyboard on a mouse has already occurred to < > Sam Drake, a Mechanical Engineering professor here who works with our Alpha_1 < > geometric modeling system. I saw him building prototype injection moulds last < > year. < > < > Getting the human factors right is tough. He was using 4 buttons for the < > fingers and a pair of shift buttons for the thumb (I think) on a vaguely < > hemispherical mouse housing. < < About ten years ago (while I was still a student) I worked for a term at < a Grad School for Educational Studies (OISE in Toronto). One day, one of < the researchers brought in a hemishperical device called a "Write-hander". < It was a keyboard replacement for one-handed people. It came in both left < and right-handed models. It had (I think) three buttons per finger plus < two buttons for the thumb. It used one-, two-, and three-button combinations < to cover the entire keyboard character set. It was an actual-honest-to-god < commercial product, but I have never seen (nor heard of) it again. < Greg Yachuk Informix Software Inc., Menlo Park, CA (415) 322-4100 A couple of comments: There really is no reason for the two halves of the keyboard used for two-handed people to be together. In fact, use studies (sorry, no references) have shown an increase in productivity when the two halves are separated by an inch or two. In addition, demanding less turning of the wrists reduces incidence of Karpal-Tunnel (sp?) syndrome. There is also a commercial 5-button keypad for one-handed people; keys are entered as binary codes. Proficient users are quite quick. I was thinking that the entire keyboard could act as a mouse; just push it, locate it, etc.. One immediate problem is: how do you pull it back? What I would prefer to see: a trackball located under the spacebar, between the thumbs (assuming a joined-half keyboard, of course). This way, I would be able to manipulate the mouse with either hand while keeping the fingers on the keyboard. Don't quite know what to do with the mouse buttons, though if I'm on the keyboard than replacing them with keys wouldn't be too bad. No software would have to change, either. (This better for comp.cog-eng?) -- David B. Lewis {ihnp4,allegra,ulysses,rutgers!mtune}!homxc!lewisd "Kenneth, the frequency! What's the frequency, Kenneth?!"
gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) (04/21/88)
In article <1798@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >Why are you always going to run out of mouse-buttons? Excuse my elipsis - if you want to keep a one-to-one mapping between button presses and logical operations (e.g. select, extend-select, move, stretch, pop-up-a-menu, help etc. etc.), then you need a mouse button for every logical operation. If you have less buttons than operations, you will end up with modes and memory problems. The three button mouse workstation I'm using at the moment can get very modey with the meaning of its buttons. So, *for one-to-one mappings* (a good thing *all things being equal*) new operations are bound to exhaust the supply of mouse buttons. Note that no-one with any sense would think that closure is possible with any creatively designed artefact, so we can continue to expect innovation in the fundamental logical operations encountered in graphical interfaces. Again, the advantage of chording with keyboard and mouse is that the supply of 'logical' mouse buttons is increased. The alternative is to have moded interpretation of mouse presses, or to map logical operations onto icons (e.g. zoom box, quit box) or window zones (e.g. move (un)constrained zones, scroll bars). There is a bandwidth problem here too, as eventually windows are going to get cluttered, complicated and intimidating if a growing set of logical operations is forever mapped onto new graphical controls. Less workspace will also become available as the borders of windows grow into complex structures. Although the respondent rarely uses his keyboard, this cannot be the case for programs such as spreadsheets (need the keypad), text processors and programming environments (need the whole keyboard). My feeling is that applications where the keyboard is essential are used for far more person-interaction-hours than applications where a keyboard is not essential. If the chording keys were duplicated down both sides of the keyboard, mouse-keyboard chording could be simplified, indeed you could probably have the necessary keys sticking out of the keyboard garage by the CPU!
tim@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Tim Northrup) (04/22/88)
In article <2432@utah-gr.UUCP>, fish%kzin.utah.edu.uucp@utah-gr.UUCP (Russ Fish) writes: > > The idea of putting a one-handed keyboard on a mouse has already occurred to > Sam Drake, a Mechanical Engineering professor here who works with our Alpha_1 > geometric modeling system. I saw him building prototype injection moulds last > year. (Sorry if this is redundant -- I missed the start of the discussion) I was in Tokyo back in January, and in one of the thousands of stores selling NEC PC's (I swear, every mom&pop store was selling them), I saw an overgrown mouse with all the standard keyboard keys mapped onto it. It was a little larger than half a softball, and the computer had no other keyboard attached. I'm a little fuzzy on the details but I seem to remember close to a dozen keys on the thing, and it seemed VERY confusing to use (but I didn't have time to get used to it). I haven't seen anything like it over here (but how many stores over here have CD-ROM drives on the shelf? Over there almost all of the bigger shops had them!). -- Tim -- Tim "The Enchanter" Northrup ---------------------------- "She's strange, tim@brspyr1.BRS.Com or uunet!steinmetz!brspyr1!tim and I like it!" ==================================================== -- Cameo
andrew@riddle.UUCP (Andrew Beattie) (04/25/88)
In article <4565@cup.portal.com> Eric_Shockwave-Rider_Larson@cup.portal.com writes: > >Actually, the principal of using a small number of keys to >represent the alphabet (and english language) has been well >worked out in court stenographer's machines. All you need >to do is miniaturize one of those, and mount it on a mouse! > > ><<<<Eric Larson>>>> No Quotation! Anyone remember the Micro writer ? it was a bit bigger than a mouse, with a button under each finger (and two for the thumb). It was easy to learn and with a little, practice, you could easily outstrip a typewriter. With some improvement it could be engineered into a typing mouse. Andrew Beattie Sphinx, 43-53 Moorbrige Road, Maidenhead, England mcvax!ukc!reading!riddle!andrew andrew@sphinx.co.uk +44 628 75343 #include <disclaimer.h>
straka@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Straka) (04/29/88)
In article <592@riddle.UUCP> andrew@riddle.UUCP (Andrew Beattie) writes: >Anyone remember the Micro writer ? it was a bit bigger than a mouse, with >a button under each finger (and two for the thumb). It was easy to learn What a concept! The logical extension is the full-blown "Saratoga" keyboard sitting on pads and with a ball underneath to act as a mouse. You could just GRAB that keyboard and mouse it around! :-))))))))))))))) -- Rich Straka ihnp4!ihlpf!straka Advice for the day: "MSDOS - just say no."
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (05/03/88)
In article <1013@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>, gilbert@glasgow.UUCP writes: > In article <1798@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > >Why are you always going to run out of mouse-buttons? > Excuse my elipsis - if you want to keep a one-to-one mapping between > button presses and logical operations (e.g. select, extend-select, > move, stretch, pop-up-a-menu, help etc. etc.), then you need a mouse > button for every logical operation. But why do you need to maintain this mapping? By means of real pop-up menus you can map an indefinite number of operations to the "menu" button without taking up any extra screen space. > So, *for one-to-one mappings* (a good thing *all things being equal*) > new operations are bound to exhaust the supply of mouse buttons. But all things aren't equal, are they? And is it such a good thing? You have to have some sort of cueing to let the user know what they just did, anyway. Why not use the selection process itself? > Although the respondent rarely uses his keyboard, this cannot be the > case for programs such as spreadsheets (need the keypad), text > processors and programming environments (need the whole keyboard). What makes you think that I rarely use the keyboard? In fact, when I'm doing something keyboard intensive I rarely use the mouse. They're both useful tools, but effective typing really requires the use of both hands, which tends to rule out the mouse. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- "Have you hugged your U wolf today?" ...!bellcore!tness1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions, these are *values*.
gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) (05/09/88)
In article <1921@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >But why do you need to maintain this mapping? By means of real pop-up >menus you can map an indefinite number of operations to the "menu" button >without taking up any extra screen space. This would slow you down. The point of chording is to extend mouse capabilties without resorting to menus. It will make some difference when your hand was already on the mouse, otherwise a clover/shift/option chord is just as good. The shift-click extend-selection combination on the Mac is a good example of chording with mouse and KB, as your hand is on the mouse (no movement commands from KB) anyway, but you're going back to that keyboard to type too. >> So, *for one-to-one mappings* (a good thing *all things being equal*) >But all things aren't equal, are they? And is it such a good thing? With n-to-one mappings, you have modes. It's good, all things being equal, to avoid these, where possible. >You have to have some sort of cueing to let the user know what they just did, >anyway. Why not use the selection process itself? You need feedback, but not always cueing, especially for experts. The selection process is slower, so chording is beneficial for expert error free performance. >> Although the respondent rarely uses his keyboard, this cannot be the >What makes you think that I rarely use the keyboard? You said you put your keyboard under the monitor yourself much of the time. >In fact, when I'm doing something keyboard intensive I rarely use the mouse. >They're both useful tools, but effective typing really requires the use of >both hands, which tends to rule out the mouse. Shame they make you point with it!
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (05/21/88)
The referenced article points out that chording is a useful shortcut for experts. I'm not denying that. All I'm saying is that it should be just that ... a shortcut. You should have some standard 1-n interface with pop-up menus... preferably with the chords and speed keys indicated on the menus... that the mouse and keyboard shortcuts are built upon. The parting blow in the article is "Too bad they force you to use a mouse". On the Amiga, I presume. They don't. You can do anything you can do with the mouse using the keyboard. It's slower, as can be expected, but it's possible. Command key shortcuts are available, as are such features as shift-selecting. But if you just want to use the mouse, or you just want to use the keyboard, it's possible. It's not perfect. For example, you can't enter text with the mouse alone. And it doesn't use pop-up menus: the menu bar emulates the Mac's kludge. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- "Have you hugged your U wolf today?" ...!bellcore!tness1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These may be the official opinions of Hackercorp.