vita@falstaff.steinmetz (Mark F. Vita) (03/19/88)
In article <1759@ssc-vax.UUCP> benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) writes: >In article <14485@oddjob.UChicago.EDU>, mcb@oddjob.UChicago.EDU (Not prince Hamlet . . .) writes: >> 3) The use of the buttons should be consistent across applications. This >> is something that Sun and IBM are apparently incapable of understanding- the >Apple also doesn't understand this consistency either, note that >when you click (select) a file from you Mac hard disk window and drag it to >your floppy window you do a COPY. When you try to to the same only instead >make the destination directory a hard disk directory ... you MOVE. Note this >is an operating system inconsistency...it makes sense but is inconsistent. I don't think that this an inconsistency in the way the *mouse button* is used. In either case, the mouse button was used to select an item in one place, move it to another place, and drop it. The fact that the Finder, in this example, interprets this action so as to not make a redundant copy of the file when the destination is the same as the source is really independent of the human interface technique of clicking and dragging. The Mac interface is always consistent in that clicking on an item with the button selects it, and dragging it moves the selection. How the application decides to interpret the consequences of such an action is up to that application. (A minor quibble: note that the Finder is not technically part of the operating system. It's just an application which allows the user to perform file operations and launch programs. One needn't use the Finder at all; there are many alternatives available.) 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. >Second Apple has a good standard but is not consistent across appliations >(even MacWrite and MacPaint as mentioned by the previous poster). >Also look at Interleaf on the Mac. Their is no enforced standard. Balderdash. There IS a standard, which is extremely well-documented, and which 90% of Mac applications follow very closely. I don't know what you mean by "enforced". Do you mean that Apple should sue software vendors that don't follow the guidelines or something? I think Apple encourages developers to follow the guidelines as vigorously as they can within practical bounds. 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. :-) But seriously, this little five-page appendix is not nearly as detailed and extensive as the user interface guidelines Apple has published for its developers. And it concentrates on very specific pieces of an interface such as buttons and frame headers; it's doesn't say much about what the overall user interface of a SunView application should be like. And it's vague in spots (for example, even Sun isn't sure exactly what should be done with the middle mouse button). Just look at the results. Mac user interfaces are extremely consistent across applications. One can start a brand new Mac application and, in most cases, start using it productively without even cracking the manual. This is because almost all Mac applications look nearly identical when they start up - an empty document window called "Untitled", and a menu bar containing the Apple menu with an "About <application>..." option followed by a list of available desk accessories, a File menu which always has "New", "Open", "Close", "Save", "Save As...", "Revert", "Page Setup", "Print" and "Quit", an Edit menu which always has "Undo", "Cut", "Copy", "Paste", "Clear" and "Select All", and often a "Font" menu containing a list of available fonts, plus whatever other application-specific menus are required. There is not even close to this level of consistency across Sun applications. 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. ---- 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
gae@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Gerald Edgar) (03/20/88)
A three-button mouse allows 8 combinations. If you add double and triple
clicks, how many is that?
I can imagine the manuals...
"While holding down the middle button, double-click the left button and
simultaneously triple-click the right button ... "
Maybe all that time I spent on Czerny will finally bear fruit.
--
Gerald A. Edgar TS1871@OHSTVMA.bitnet
Department of Mathematics gae@osupyr.UUCP
The Ohio State University ...{akgua,gatech,ihnp4,ulysses}!cbosgd!osupyr!gae
Columbus, OH 43210 70715,1324 CompuServebarnett@vdsvax.steinmetz.ge.com (Bruce G. Barnett) (03/20/88)
In article <445@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> gae@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu.UUCP (Gerald Edgar) writes: | |A three-button mouse allows 8 combinations. If you add double and triple |clicks, how many is that? | |I can imagine the manuals... | |"While holding down the middle button, double-click the left button and |simultaneously triple-click the right button ... " No you can't. In most cases the manuals for the basic tools only describe the way to bind the complex actions to your own functions. When you can combine 1 of n mouse buttons control/shift/meta modifiers double/triple clicks mouse chords (pressing 2 of 3, or 3 of 3) you end up with so much flexibility that you in reality use modifiers to have GENERAL meanings like: shift - changes direction of function control - modifies function - may dramaticly change interface double-click - select word instead of letter triple-click - select sentance or line instead of letter. pressing three mouse buttons - on-line help manual, exit, etc. and so on. It is a lot easier to remember the modifiers because there are patterns involved. And because of the number of modifiers that are available - it is easier to group together modifiers because you have so many combinations, you can afford to NOT USE many of the combinations. To continue the example, in SunView - the middle mouse button moves a window. Adding the Control-key modifier changes the function to resize. The left mouse button brings the window to the front. The shift- modifier reversing the direction so the window goes to the bottom. In scroll-bars, the shift-modifier reverses the direction of the scrolling. Most tools don't use many complex modifiers. Complex modifiers are not needed because you HAVE so many combinations. One exception is the interface to Emacs. Since emacs is so flexible, the user interface to emacs should also be flexible. So if the user WANTS to bind a (double click the left and middle button while holding down the meta key) sequence to an operation, it is because the user finds some convenient way to remember the sequence or because all of the other combinations are already used. I have a chart I use for the Emacstool/GNUemacs bindings. To be honest, I don't know anyone whom uses more than a hundred different mouse/keyboard combinations from memory. But then I haven't asked around :-) Remember, these modifiers should be _optional_ in a friendly window system. The basic interface should work without double-clicking, function keys, chords, etc. These modifiers should be easy to learn because of some mnemonics like the ones I mentioned above. I like SunView myself - having used it for years. It should be more customizable, which is one reason I am looking forward to NeWS. One other point I would like to make about SunView and three-button mice: Any mouse/keypad accelerator that has a dramatic effect usually has a warning if the results cannot be undone, giving the user a change to change his/her mind. This is very important and encourges people to experiment, because if there are wrong, the wrong action can be undone. -- Bruce G. Barnett <barnett@ge-crd.ARPA> <barnett@steinmetz.UUCP> uunet!steinmetz!barnett
barnett@vdsvax.steinmetz.ge.com (Bruce G. Barnett) (03/21/88)
In article <4101@vdsvax.steinmetz.ge.com> I wrote: |In article <445@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> | gae@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu.UUCP (Gerald Edgar) writes: ||I can imagine the manuals... |No you can't. I appologize to Gerald for the abrupt reply. I missed the Keywords: humor in his posting. -- Bruce G. Barnett <barnett@ge-crd.ARPA> <barnett@steinmetz.UUCP> uunet!steinmetz!barnett