mark.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay@sri-unix (09/10/82)
From: Mark Weiser <mark.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay> A recent comment suggests that TTY-style might win over full-screen style because (1) TTY-style makes interactive sessions easier to describe on paper, and (2) TTY-style makes your mistakes easier to see. I can't agree with either of these points. The first is putting the cart before the horse--a program should not be distorted for ease of documentation, only for ease of use. These are not the same. Furthermore, using documents to describe programs is the wrong way to go. Let the program describe itself, if it doesn't exist yet, rapid-prototype up a demonstration system so people can try out a little of what the program would feel like if it did exist. I never managed to learn emacs from a written description--but with teach-emacs I had no problem. Point (2) I think is really an arguement for infinite undo. When a mistake is made the most important thing is to be able to correct it and try again, not just see it. Infinite undo means that no matter how far back you goofed you can undo back to there and proceed forward again. TTY-mode still only lets some mistakes be seen. I certainly don't think that these two points mean TTY-style is the method of choice unless random screen access is "strictly necessary". The opposite is true: unless these advantages(?) of TTY-style interaction outweigh the disadvantages (low bandwidth, single text stream, lack of context), use random access screen. Who's Let these machines