hds@io.UUCP (H.David Scarbro) (03/23/88)
I would like to add a little historical and rational perspective to the following comments made by Mark F. Vita (vita@desdemona.steinmetz.ge.com). > I think what the original poster meant by "inconsistent use of mouse > buttons" is when different applications use the same buttons to perform > completely different user interface actions; for example, some > applications use the right button for menus, some use the middle > button; some use the middle button to extend selections, some don't. > >... > > Also, putting up Interleaf as an example of inconsistency in the > Macintosh interface is extremely misleading. Interleaf is NOT a > Macintosh application. It's a Sun application that was ported to the > Mac, complete with it's brain-damaged abomination of a user interface. > (brain-damaged even by Sun application standards). > > >FYI. Sun also has a chapter in their SunView Programmer's book on Sun user > >interface design. > > Yeah. Obviously the people at Interleaf haven't read it. :-) > >... > > Note that I'm not saying that all SunView user interfaces are bad. > Some are very good (example: FrameMaker. Wonder where they got their > inspiration? :-). But by and large, they just aren't consistent > with each other. Interleaf developed it's window system, user interface and desktop manager before there was a Sun window system. The first release of our software and the first release of SunWindows (with SunOs 2.0) were made at about the same time. All current versions of Interleaf allow a user to mouse in either Interleaf (middle button menus) or Sun (right button menus) consistent fashion. Having our own window system and UI toolkit has made it possible to port our software to five different hardware platforms (basically all of today's major engineering workstations). Running in this diversity, we find ourselves in the middle of the user interface controversy. On the one hand, we developed our own interface at the same time or before those running on the various machines. On the other hand, our software is used by a wide range of people with very diverse expectations. It isn't unreasonable to expect an application (like Interleaf) to have the "look and feel" that is the norm for a particular workstation. With the exception of the Mac, user interface toolkits are just becoming a reality. It wasn't until SunView 1.0 that Sun had anything resembling one. We have moved--and will continue to move--our interface towards the native interfaces of the various platforms on which we run. If the Mac interface is the only acceptable interface, then much of what the author says follows. But it's possible, despite the author's implications, that there is merit to interfaces other than the Mac's. For example, consider two of Interleaf's UI firsts: The first is "intelligent defaulting" for hierarchical popup menus. With "intelligent defaulting", a popup appears with with its default selected. The default is initially the most frequently used command on the popup. After another command is performed on the popup, it normally becomes the default. However, there are cases where one command implies another should become the default. A simple example is "cut" and "paste". Paste is the default command following cut. This simple anticipation mechanism eliminates a lot of tedious popup menu navigation. The second is using a timeout to eliminate displaying a popup. If the menu button is depressed and released within a .25 of a second, the popup menu is not displayed, but the default command from the popup is performed. But, as the letter to which this is a reply makes clear, I guess you can't please everyone. --- H. David Scarbro Interleaf, Inc., Ten Canal Park, Cambridge, MA 02141 UUCP: ..!{sun!sunne,mit-eddie}!ileaf!hds
vita@falstaff.steinmetz (Mark F. Vita) (03/24/88)
In article <565@io.UUCP> hds@io.UUCP (H.David Scarbro) writes: >Interleaf developed it's window system, user interface and desktop >manager before there was a Sun window system. The first release of >our software and the first release of SunWindows (with SunOs 2.0) were >made at about the same time. Well, it's been roughly two years since the introduction of SunView and the publication of Sun's user interface guidelines. The excuse that "our interface was invented before SunView" is starting to wear a bit thin. It seems to me that there has been ample opportunity to bring the Interleaf interface up to standard. >... >It isn't unreasonable to expect an application (like Interleaf) to >have the "look and feel" that is the norm for a particular >workstation. Yes, this is precisely my point. >With the exception of the Mac, user interface toolkits >are just becoming a reality. It wasn't until SunView 1.0 that Sun had >anything resembling one. Well, as I've pointed out, SunView has been a "reality" for quite some time now. Certainly enough time for some of your competitors to develop entire applications which *do* conform to SunView. >We have moved--and will continue to move--our >interface towards the native interfaces of the various platforms on >which we run. I'm glad to hear it. >If the Mac interface is the only acceptable interface, then much of >what the author says follows. I don't recall ever saying that the Mac interface is the only acceptable interface. What exists of the SunView standard is perfectly "acceptable". However, I do not find the Interleaf interface "acceptable". >But it's possible, despite the author's >implications, that there is merit to interfaces other than the Mac's. >For example, consider two of Interleaf's UI firsts: > >The first is "intelligent defaulting" for hierarchical popup menus. >... >The second is using a timeout to eliminate displaying a popup. >... >But, as the letter to which this is a reply makes clear, I guess you >can't please everyone. Again, I never said that any interface which is not a Mac interface is without merit. You have pointed out two nice features of the Interleaf interface (in fact, without the first one, the interface would be almost completely unbearable). However, the existence of such features does not do much to help the fact that the Interleaf interface, overall, is extremely annoying and frustrating to use, especially for someone who routinely uses other SunView applications. Let me just clarify; my beef with the Interleaf interface isn't just that it's nonstandard, but also that it's basically a terrible, aggravating, nonintuitive interface. It isn't just an issue as to which mouse button brings up the menu. The interface needs a complete overhaul. >H. David Scarbro >Interleaf, Inc., Ten Canal Park, Cambridge, MA 02141 >UUCP: ..!{sun!sunne,mit-eddie}!ileaf!hds ---- Mark Vita ARPA: vita@ge-crd.ARPA General Electric Company UUCP: vita@desdemona.steinmetz.UUCP Corporate R & D vita@desdemona.steinmetz.ge.com Schenectady, NY desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP