craig@unicus.UUCP (Craig D. Hubley) (06/05/87)
> Perhaps we need a group, comp.ui for user interfaces. Or will the windows > groups handle it? I vehemently support a comp.ui group. Posting to several possibly relevant windows groups, as continues to happen, simply wastes net.money and prompts indignant reminders from aficionadoes of the "real" topic. General features of windowing systems seem to belong only in comp.windows.misc But there's a lot more to user interfaces than windows... Alternative input and output devices - tactile feedback - audio - touchscreens - multimodal (say, mouse and trackball...) Animation - ARK (Alternate Reality Kit)-style interfaces and other visual metaphors - programming by example . . . Some of these topics might adequately be covered in other groups, but clearly there is a sort of gestalt to this topic that doesn't necessarily exist within even a broad cross-section of other groups. The issue is, how should humans interact with their technology? Not whether we need (insert generic window feature here) on the (insert generic machine or window package here). Just an opinion, Craig
tedcrane@batcomputer.UUCP (06/08/87)
In article <619@unicus.UUCP> craig@unicus.UUCP (Craig D. Hubley) writes: >I vehemently support a comp.ui group. >Posting to several possibly relevant windows groups, as continues to happen, >simply wastes net.money and prompts indignant reminders from aficionadoes >of the "real" topic. > >But there's a lot more to user interfaces than windows... I agree...the fellow has a good point. Where's a good place to put discussion on this topic? - ted crane, alias (tc) tedcrane@squid.tn.cornell.edu BITNET: tedcrane@CRNLTHRY {decvax!ucbvax}!squid.tn.cornell.edu!tedcrane DECnet: GOPHER::THC
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (06/09/87)
> > Perhaps we need a group, comp.ui for user interfaces. Or will the windows > > groups handle it? > > I vehemently support a comp.ui group. A user-interface group should be justified on grounds of traffic, not just interest. Real traffic, not hypothetical traffic. Comp.windows.misc is hardly an ideal place, and comp.cog-eng isn't really right either, but one of them (the former, I would suggest) will do until traffic picks up. It is a mistake to think that creating a group will automatically create the traffic that is needed to justify a separate newsgroup. Have you looked at comp.std.internat lately? -- "There is only one spacefaring Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology nation on Earth today, comrade." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
bob@acornrc.UUCP (Bob Weissman) (06/09/87)
In article <1301@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>, tedcrane@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Ted Crane) writes: > In article <619@unicus.UUCP> craig@unicus.UUCP (Craig D. Hubley) writes: > >I vehemently support a comp.ui group. > I agree...the fellow has a good point. Where's a good place to put discussion > on this topic? Several months ago, I posted this exact query to the net. To make a long story short, the result was that general user interface discussions should be carried on in comp.cog-eng, the "cognitive engineering" group. There was really not enough interest to warrant a whole new newsgroup, as I asked for "votes" and only recieved about two dozen. -- Bob Weissman Internet: bob@acornrc.UUCP UUCP: ...!{ ames | decwrl | oliveb | apple }!acornrc!bob Arpanet: bob%acornrc.UUCP@AMES.ARPA
ken@rochester.arpa (Ken Yap) (06/09/87)
|>But there's a lot more to user interfaces than windows... | |I agree...the fellow has a good point. Where's a good place to put discussion |on this topic? Agreed, there is more to UI than windows. So why not start posting stuff here? When the volume attracts complaints, then a new group can be justified. Unless somebody is willing to collect votes? Ken
bryce@COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU (Bryce Nesbitt) (06/09/87)
In article <> tedcrane@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu.UUCP (Ted Crane) writes: >In article <619@unicus.UUCP> craig@unicus.UUCP (Craig D. Hubley) writes: >> >> I vehemently support a comp.ui group. >> [ Ongoing discussion on this topic is spread out in several places ] >> >I agree...the fellow has a good point. Where's a good place to put discussion >on this topic? The group news.groups is for such discussion. In this case, however, there is a clear need. Several steps of showing a need have be hurdled. What a volunteer needs to do is cross-post to all the scattered groups like: comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.amiga,comp.windows,comp.windows.news,comp.windows.x, comp.widows.misc,comp.os.research,comp.lang.smalltalk,news.groups ^^^^^^^^^^^ (and others, check the spelling of the names) Describe the purpose of the group, and the need clearly and compactly. Ask for YES or NO votes about the subject of "comp.ui". GIVE SEVERAL, CLEAR ADDRESSES for yourself, as the responses will be by -->MAIL<--. Tally the results and make a posting in news.groups. Like a real-world signature campaign, give the mail address of all positive responents in your news.groups posting. ---------- Ack! (NAK,EOT,SOH) |\ /| . {o O} . bryce@cogsci.berkeley.EDU -or- ucbvax!cogsci!bryce ( " ) U ClickToFront, I like it. (see your local comp.binaries.amiga group)
twb@hoqax.UUCP (06/10/87)
In article <340@acornrc.UUCP>, bob@acornrc.UUCP (Bob Weissman) writes: > In article <1301@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>, tedcrane@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Ted Crane) writes: > > In article <619@unicus.UUCP> craig@unicus.UUCP (Craig D. Hubley) writes: > I asked for "votes" and only recieved about two dozen. I vote YES for a .uims group. Tom.