soft-eng@MITRE.ARPA (Alok Nigam) (09/25/88)
Soft-Eng Digest Fri, 23 Sep 88 V: Issue 31
Today's Topics:
Colors of traffic signals (Was Re: OPEN LOOK) (3 msgs)
Michael Jackson's postal address? (not the popstar)
OPEN LOOK (5 msgs)
Project Manager
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 16 Sep 88 15:49:27 GMT
From: nprdc!trejo@ucsd.edu (Leonard J. Trejo)
Subject: Colors of traffic signals (Was Re: OPEN LOOK)
> RED is safer than BLUE for stops since...
This is rubbish. What is seen most easily depends on many visual
factors other than wavelength. Size, retinal eccentricity,
background, adaptation level, and temporal properties are a few of
these. Other factors being equal, the most detectable wavelengths are
yellow green under light-adapted conditions and bluish green under
dark adapted conditions.
White is better for headlights not because it is seen more easily but
because it renders the color of objects that it is reflected from
better than any narrow band of wavelengths.
> Physics will tell you that blue (a higher energy frequency) will
>travel further than red.
This also sounds wrong. I don't think the energy of a photon has
anything at all to do with how far it travels.
>But a fact of human engineering is that red is
>more easily noticed by the eye - especially when other light (sun light)
>is interfering. This is why many police vehicle use BOTH red and blue.
>Red for Day, Blue for Night.
>
> Next time you see a police flashing its lights in the extream
>distance, you'll see likely notice just the red at first.
There may indeed be something special about red as opposed to blue.
The blue-sensitive cones contribute almost exclusively to chromatic
channels, which are more sluggish than the achromatic channels fed
primarily by red- and green-sensitive cones. There is also
some evidence that red may be detected sooner than other colors.
Thus may have to do with the biological significance or red, as in
the sight of blood. Reaction time experiments and visual evoked potential
recordings support this notion, but the results of different laboratories have
not always agreed. Uttal, for example, found faster reactions to blue,
then green, then red (I think he was wrong). Nevertheless, the subject
is still controversial.
------------------------------
Date: 16 Sep 88 23:55:29 GMT
From: voder!wlbr!mh@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Mike Hoegeman)
Subject: Colors of traffic signals (Was Re: OPEN LOOK)
>This is rubbish. What is seen most easily depends on many visual...
...more optometrists-on-their-lunch-hour-type talk here....
OH COME ON!! Geoffrey was just trying to make the point that things
like scroll bars are such a basic tool that there is probably some
merit in defining a standard way of operating one. The stoplight
analogy was just poking fun at the original poster's high and mighty
vehemence at someone having the gall to try and make a set of
guidelines for such a thing. Nothing more nothing less.
------------------------------
Date: 19 Sep 88 04:54:11 GMT
From: nprdc!trejo@ucsd.edu (Leonard J. Trejo)
Subject: Colors of traffic signals (Was Re: OPEN LOOK)
>...more optometrists-on-their-lunch-hour-type talk here....
^^^^^^^^^^^^
If I were an optometrist I'd have signed my posting as O.D., not Ph.D.
I'm a research psychologist.
>OH COME ON!! Geoffrey was just trying to make the point that things
>...
My reading of Geoffrey's message picked up the sarcasm intended for
the 'OPEN LOOK' poster. However, mixed in with the sarcasm were some
authoritative sounding statements about, for example, which
colors are seen better. Having observed how easily wrong information
is picked up and passed around, especially about color vision, I felt
it necessary to respond. In doing so, I came across very
officiously myself, and it seems I goofed about blue light not
traveling farther than red in our atmosphere. For these errors,
I apologize.
------------------------------
Date: 16 Sep 88 16:52:44 GMT
From: csli!kasper@labrea.stanford.edu (Kasper Osterbye)
Subject: Michael Jackson's postal address? (not the popstar)
Does anyone out there in netland know the address of Micheal Jackson.
In his book `System Development' there is no address mentioned.
I know his company is named `Michael Jackson System Limited' and
it is in England. But that is hardly enough for the postman to find
him.
------------------------------
Date: 16 Sep 88 22:21:46 GMT
From: sgi!daisy!klee@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Ken Lee)
Subject: OPEN LOOK
If you don't like OPEN LOOK, don't use it. It's not the law, it's just
someone's (AT&T's and Sun's) suggestions. On the other hand, most of
the Macintosh's success is based on its "user friendliness". Most of
this ease of use comes from the consistent user interface defined in the
Macintosh user interface guidelines.
I wouldn't worry too much about OPEN LOOK infringing on your (user
interface designer) style. It generally specifies only the most simple
parts of the user interface, such as scroll bars, push buttons, popup
menus. These all have fairly standard semantics in current user
interfaces, so standardizing the syntax isn't too bad. More complex
user interface issues, where the "art" comes in, are left to the
designer.
OPEN LOOK perhaps goes much to far in the window manager/top-level
window area, as this is still a hot topic in the client/server window
system world and still very implementation dependent in the kernel
window system world. Window managers are generally separate from
applications, so this still isn't too bad.
Application user interface designers can count on being employed a
little longer.
------------------------------
Date: 17 Sep 88 04:44:01 GMT
From: voder!pyramid!leadsv!esl!dml@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Denis Lynch)
Subject: OPEN LOOK
>While having the "right" human
>interface be standard is a good idea (see a previous poster's
>extreme example of traffic lights), standardizing the "wrong"
>human interface is NOT a good idea.
The real point is that there is such a thing as "good enough." There
is, simply, no "right" user interface. There is a lot of commonality
among the good user interfaces that are out on the street now, and
almost all programs would benefit from taking the appropriate lessons
from what is already "common knowledge." That is the point of Open
Look: define a very good user interface that will certainly be
augmented over time. This will ensure that good toolkits (or, more
generally, development environments) become available so that even
simple applications can share this user interface.
If the biggest issue you have to worry about is the appearance of
scroll bars, you have much narrower vision than a good application
developer should. Worry about what your application "means" to users,
how it can be enhanced to better fit into more areas, how to make it
more robust, etc. Let somebody else worry about the little stuff.
>But (for example), a slider
>with only one adjustable parameter isn't "right" in my book,
Which proves my point. Of *course* a slider should only have one
parameter. There are other "input devices" that can have more
(trackball- or joystick-like; color wheels, etc.) but sliders just
have one.
>nor is
>the requirement that horizontal scrollbars be on the bottom of a
>window.
But how about the Open Look definition, which makes it a user
preference where scroll bars should appear? I don't want your
application on my system if you decide that everybody else did this
wrong, and you are going to save the world. For the things that really
annoy people (like button assignments on 3-button mice for lefties,
and which side of the screen vertical scroll bars should be on), make
it user adjustable. In addition to being the right approach, this
happens to be the Open Look approach.
Use your creativity for something that will make a difference!
------------------------------
Date: 16 Sep 88 19:03:28 GMT
From: panda!teddy!svb@husc6.harvard.edu (Stephen V. Boyle)
Subject: OPEN LOOK
>(OPEN LOOK) ... is a *specification* for the "look and feel" of graphical user
>interfaces which fully details the appearance and function of the
>elements of the interface.
Personally, I'm rather happy that Sun has made an effort to produce a style
guide. I haven't used a lot of applications on a Sun workstation, but I've used
a few, and I find the differences in "look and feel" to be disconcerting to the
user and obstructive to effective use of the tool.
Specifying a style guide is often a very effective way of ensuring that users
of applications developed on a platform can easily switch among applications.
The style guide allows people to concentrate on the syntax and semantics of the
tool, and not have to concern themselves with the permutation of the interface.
In the example of the scrollbars, I concur with the person who mentioned the
confusion factor involved with remembering/figuring out how to move up or
down in the window; I always have to click the button and see what happens
before I can do what I want. I think the door handle analogy is a bit specious
since, as pointed out, "door handles" often have to perform different flavors
of the same function; I expect a scroll bar to move me up or down through a
view, period.
As far as a style guide removing the creativity from designing interfaces, I
don't believe that creativity is precluded. For example, I don't feel con-
strained by the rules of the languages I program in - the rules set out what I
can and can not do; my application of those rules is the place where I get to
exercise my creativity and engineering skills. I guess my view of OPEN LOOK is
that I get a set of design rules that help me make my interfaces more consis-
tent for my users - I don't feel overly constrained. The Macintosh has managed
to do very well and in fact is often pointed to as an example of how applica-
tions can be made consistent on a single machine. This has come about because
the Mac has a very specific set of design rules for interfaces. The Mac appli-
cations I've used employ different uses of those design rules, and in general
are quite successful. "Consistent" does not necessarily mean "duplicate".
>All of this attention on minor details actually fails to address the
>real issues behind user interface standardization -- that of how a
>particular application maps into the controls presented to the user.
>
>designers need is not a standard "look and feel," but rather a careful
>look at the art of user interface design, perhaps a definative reference
>work on the subject so that programmers can create their own user
>interfaces that are clear, simple and attractive.
The above seems to partially illustrate my point. What the style guide provides
is "the attention to minor detail" that many interface designers and
programmers often ignore. *This* is the level where a consistent look and feel
begins. I agree that *one* of the issues confronting UI designers is "how a
particular application maps into the controls presented to the user." However,
this is only part of the total UI design, just the same as design and coding
is only part of the total software engineering process. Designers do need a
standard look and feel, as well as definitive references and methodologies to
use when creating interfaces. A style guide specifying the look and feel is
only one tool that should be available in the UI designers kit, but I feel it
is a necessary one. Once designers start using the tools available to them, and
as good UI design methodologies become available, then the creators of user
interfaces can really exercise their creative talents and begin to move towards
true interface engineering. I think this process will make UI design more fun,
more interesting, and *less* restrictive, since the human being will be able to
apply all of their efforts to the design problem, not to the repetitive common
work associated with the task.
I skipped a lot of detail here, but this is getting kind of long, so I'll cut
it off at this point.
------------------------------
Date: 19 Sep 88 04:39:42 GMT
From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!woods@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Greg Woods)
Subject: OPEN LOOK
I'm extremely happy to see the positive response given to OPEN LOOK.
When it was first described to me (by Bill Joy in his keynote speach at
Unix/etc.88 in Toronto), it "felt" right.
To summarize previous poster's thoughts, and to state my thoughts briefly
try this:
The artistic and stylistic content of an application should _NOT_ be in
the user interface to the application, but in the use, operation, and
results of the application.
If you waste your creativity building yet-another user interface, you
will likely have a less useful application, and you will probably have
violated any other existing user interface standards.
BTW: OPEN LOOK, though technically is just a specification, there are
also promised implementations for major windowing systems.
------------------------------
Date: 19 Sep 88 19:28:01 GMT
From: hp-sdd!nick@hplabs.hp.com (Nick Flor)
Subject: OPEN LOOK
>While this valid in principle, and OPEN LOOK does provide some good
>guidelines to work from, it goes too far in specifying exactly what the
>interface must look like.
What's wrong with this? My feeling is that if the interface
specification is based on what has been proven to be an effective means
of conveying the functional characteristics of the icons, then why not
specify it exactly?
Too much freedom of expression for programmers leads to confusion with
the users.
------------------------------
Date: 19 Sep 88 20:43:59 GMT
From: scott@gemini.laic.uucp (Scott Weitzenkamp)
Subject: Project Manager
I would be interested in any info concerning project management
software running under Unix or VMS.
------------------------------
End of Soft-Eng Digest
******************************