chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (11/23/87)
Was anyone else disgusted by Steve Bobker's editorial in the latest MacUser?
On how rotten Hypercard was? (Fortunately, Shapiro was on the next page
write exactly the opposite -- the end result being that MacUSer, as usual,
didn't say a damn thing....).
For those that missed it, Bobker has two main points 'proving' that
Hypercard was bad:
1) Apple's giving it away. And for only one reason, because it'll force
everyone to go out and buy more memory, causing Apple to make lots of
money.
Now, while I'll admit that lots of folks are going to want/need more memory,
lots of that upgrade money will be going to third parties, not to Apple. I
don't see a lot of gain for Apple from this one. And Bobker misses the basic
reason why Apple is giving HyperCard away. Bill Atkinson had it written into
his contract. If Apple DID NOT give HyperCard away, ownership reverted back
to Bill and he planned on giving it away himself. Apple basically had no
choice.
It's not as if this is a big secret. It was common knowledge at MacExpo.
It's been all over this network as well as on Delphi (and, I assume, on
CompuServe). The only excuse I can see for this is that Bobker either is
completely ignoring reality or he's creating his own reality in a way to
make Apple look bad. At best, it's shoddy journalism. I'm not impressed.
2) Bobker's other point was that the lack of restriction on the user
interface will kill the Mac. I almost fell out of my chair laughing over
this one. His claim is that with everyone doing exactly what they want,
the cohesiveness of the Mac Interface will die, and so will the mac.
My response is simple. Bull. To put it simply, this isn't a new problem.
Lots of programs have taken lots of liberties with the Mac User Interface
over time. The really strange ones, the ones that broke rules or bent them
in bad ways, tend to go out of business because people won't buy or use
them. They get bad reviews, bad press, and bad sales.
Others muck with the user interface and occasionally fix something that was
broken, or come up with something the interface forgot. The zoom-window
icon, for instance, came out of an extension in Word 1.0, not out of Apple.
It was a good enough idea that Apple adopted it.
MacUser has the most consistently unprogfessional and immature journalism of
ANY magazine in the Mac universe. This is just the latest instance of shoddy
writing and innuendo. MacUser seems to think that Apple Bashing is a Good
Thing. I'm all for criticizing Apple when they muck up, but MacUser never
seems to have anything good to say. And if the facts don't back them up,
they tend to make up some new facts (just keep an eye on the Rumor Manager
section -- especially the rumors about the Developer Cabal that's going to
file suit over HyperCard. The Cabal seems to consist of Owl, Owl, and Owl).
I'd also like to point out that MacUser is by far the most unprofessional
magazine I've ever attempted to work with from the point of view of a
writer. They've punted four straight queries of mine. Not turned them down,
simply neglected to respond to them at all (and yes, I include return
postage and envelopes). This is pretty nasty, becausze many ideas have
limited time value -- by the time you realize they aren't going to bother
responding, the idea is unsalable elsewhere. This doesn't seem to be a
special case, either. I've talked with two other Macuser writers or
attempted-writers who have had major problems getting timely responses out
of them. I have heard from an unidentified but reliable source that MacUser
lost a senior editorial person to another magazine because they refused to
pay freelancers on a timely basis. Many folks I talk to now refuse to write
for them -- and you can count me on that list now, too.
The latest query was sent after a request in the last issue for queries from
new writers. MacUser specifically asked folks to contact them about writing
for them. So I did, and as part of the letter pointed out my past problems
with getting responses from the magazine and asked for a confirmation of the
letter by November 15 (four weeks for a confirmation of a one page query
letter not being unreasonable). A week past the deadline, nada. Even as
their asking folks to write for them, they're screwing over those that try.
MacUser started out a good magazine. They've turned into a shoddy,
unprofessional, inaccurate rumorsheet. I've let my subscription lapse, and
I've sent them my last query. This kind of magazine the field can do
without. If I were you, if you read MacUser, I'd find a new magazine.
chuq
---
Chuq "Fixed in 4.0" Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQsbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) (11/23/87)
In article <34557@sun.uucp> chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >MacUser started out a good magazine. They've turned into a shoddy, >unprofessional, inaccurate rumorsheet. I've let my subscription lapse, and >I've sent them my last query. This kind of magazine the field can do >without. If I were you, if you read MacUser, I'd find a new magazine. > >chuq >--- >Chuq "Fixed in 4.0" Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ I've been getting the same feeling myself, Chuq (although I'm just one of the millions of poor sods who subsribes -- thank God I don't write for them). But since I gave up on MacWorld long ago (they seemed much too fluffy), where's a news-hungry Mac user to turn? I get MacTutor for programming tips, but for product reviews and previews, is there a reasonable alternative to MacUser? -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." ...!seismo!cmcl2!esquire!sbb | - David Letterman
zrm@eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks) (11/23/87)
In article <34557@sun.uucp> chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >2) Bobker's other point was that the lack of restriction on the user > interface will kill the Mac. I almost fell out of my chair laughing over > this one. His claim is that with everyone doing exactly what they want, > the cohesiveness of the Mac Interface will die, and so will the mac. > >My response is simple. Bull. To put it simply, this isn't a new problem. I second that "Bull." Hypercard evolved from Magic Slate, an attempt at a next-generation user interface. In many ways Hypercard's user interface is easier to use than that of most Macintosh applications that faithfully hew to the User Interface Guidlines. John Scully has said in interviews that Hypercard is of strategic importance to Apple now that IBM will have a Macintosh-like user interface. By that he means that Apple intends to stay ahead in user interface design. The issue of cohesiveness is simply a red herring. As long as Hypercard stacks are easy and obvious in their user interface, they have fulfilled the user interface contract. "Cohesiveness" should not come to mean familiarity for familiarity's sake. The next-generation computer from Apple may not have a menu bar, or a Desktop, or it may not implement buttons and other controls the Macintosh way. Things will have to change simply because the Macintosh is too bound to today's technology to last for more than 5-6 more years before a compellingly superior user interface is possible at a reasonable price. -Zigurd
cramer%clem@Sun.COM (Sam Cramer) (11/24/87)
Chuq and Zigurd write defending Hypercard against attack on inconsistent
user interface grounds. I beg to differ.
I find the non-standard user interface of Hypercard most distressing. The
strongest point of the Macintosh is its simple and consistent user interface.
I feel comfortable recommending the Mac to people who have not used computers
before because I know it will take them very little time to learn the basics
of almost every application available. Hypercard changes all that. How
many people who first fired up Hypercard tried to double-click on a button?
A bit confusing, no?
The non-standard interface of Hypercard is a giant step backward. Hypercard
is a great application, with a lousy user interface - lousy because it is
not consistent with the vast majority of Mac applications. I'm amazed
that it made it out in its current form. While the MacUser criticism is
overstated, the basic point is valid: Hypercard does not conform to the
Mac user interface.
Sam Cramer {cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!cramer cramer@sun.comjohn@felix.UUCP (John Gilbert) (11/26/87)
In article <34647@sun.uucp> cramer@sun.UUCP (Sam Cramer) writes: >Chuq and Zigurd write defending Hypercard against attack on inconsistent >user interface grounds. I beg to differ. > >I find the non-standard user interface of Hypercard most distressing. The >strongest point of the Macintosh is its simple and consistent user interface. >I feel comfortable recommending the Mac to people who have not used computers >before because I know it will take them very little time to learn the basics >of almost every application available. Hypercard changes all that. How >many people who first fired up Hypercard tried to double-click on a button? >A bit confusing, no? Maybe at first. Remember that in the standard Mac interface, you always single-click buttons. You double-click ICONS, to open them. Hypercard introduces buttons that can have icons built in. You just need to realize you are not in a finder-substitute - those things are BUTTONS. It may sometimes be a drawback that the Mac interface allows you to stop thinking about what you do. >The non-standard interface of Hypercard is a giant step backward. Hypercard >is a great application, with a lousy user interface - lousy because it is >not consistent with the vast majority of Mac applications. I'm amazed >that it made it out in its current form. While the MacUser criticism is >overstated, the basic point is valid: Hypercard does not conform to the >Mac user interface. The interface in HyperCard is not substantially different. It is limited, and will probably improve. But this whole argument seems sort of off track. You can't blame the program. You might want to blame the tools, but really, you should blame the developers who chose to use the tools in a non-standard way. It is possible to create some very Mac-like interfaces in HyperCard. It is also very possible to create some non-Mac-like interfaces using the toolbox. There are developer guidelines to follow for BOTH the toolbox and now for HyperCard as well. Things will settle appropriately after we all can experience the best ways to use the HyperCard tools, and after the tools support has had a chance to mature. I think at this point the term "lousy" is definately extreme and premature. This does not mean I think HyperCard is perfect. There are many things I would like to see change. The most obnoxious thing I can think of, which has previously been addressed, is the "helpfulness" of the interpreter in trying to second guess that I just "forgot" the quotes. As the developer of a different language, I learned quickly that the people using it, if they are really interested in pursuing it, will want consistancy. If I "forgot" some quotes, then I can handle being told about it, but don't go forward trying to second guess me and in the end yielding incorrect results. Give me the chance to fix it. It also suffers from some strange attitudes, such as the one expressed by the following quote from the Goodman book (p. 76) : "While HyperCard should not be confused with reporting databases..." Why not? Only reason I can think of is that reporting features are weak. This comment seems like an attempt to rationalize that fact. If you got a bunch of information that is important, then you will need to produce reports. I give the benefit of the doubt that this attitude will vanish with time and work to enhance the reporting features. The script editor should be more like other editors. It still can be. This is a young product. I think it deserves some time to develop. It certainly holds a great deal of potential, and is worth giving a chance to mature. John G. -- John Gilbert !trwrb!felix!john
mentat@auscso.UUCP (Robert Dorsett) (11/27/87)
In article <14541@felix.UUCP> john@felix.UUCP (John Gilbert) writes: > >>The non-standard interface of Hypercard is a giant step backward. Hypercard >>is a great application, with a lousy user interface - lousy because it is >>not consistent with the vast majority of Mac applications. I'm amazed >>that it made it out in its current form. While the MacUser criticism is >>overstated, the basic point is valid: Hypercard does not conform to the >>Mac user interface. > >The interface in HyperCard is not substantially different. It is limited, >and will probably improve. But this whole argument seems sort of off track. >You can't blame the program. You might want to blame the tools, but really, >you should blame the developers who chose to use the tools in a non-standard >way. It is possible to create some very Mac-like interfaces in HyperCard. Hypercard's been likened as the new Applesoft (for those of you whose memories don't extend in that direction, Applesoft was the very fast BASIC inter- preter built into Apple ]['s): something that one can crank up relatively fast and get some "useful" work done in. Unfortunately, it is CLEARLY producing the same quality of software that Applesoft did. Anyone remember those Apple ads in 1981-82 promoting the II because of its "massive program reserve," which was listed at 30,000-45,000 programs? The bulk of which were utterly unusable or pure trash. Hypercard's going to give a lot of relative novices the power to CREATE stuff. They are not under the pressure that both hackers and professional developers have been to create standardized software (it's STILL a miracle that there haven't been more PD programs distributed running in xyz environment's "development" shell). It is impossible to contest that Hypercard's really neat, and will be useful for a lot of people. But I think that the overall quality of software for the Mac will suffer as a consequence: people will (and have) create embarassing software, and proudly distribute it by uploading their creations to BBS's or distributing copies through user groups. I don't think that type of propagation will speak well for the Mac, as a whole. And let's not even mention the massive SIZE of Hypercard stacks. I do NOT think that Hypercard "developers" are under the same pressure to be con- sistent as the people who acutally own copies of Inside Mac. Who knows, perhaps Apple has purposely avoided pushing consistency to placate the "hysterical developers" that the Mac rags consistently refer to (but never NAME, for some reason :-)). -- Robert Dorsett {allegra,ihnp4}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!walt!mentat University of Texas at Austin {allegra, ihnp4}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!auscso!mentat
dlw@hpsmtc1.HP.COM (David Williams) (11/30/87)
I further second that Bull, Bobker is a B*nehead! nuff said...
straka@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Straka) (11/30/87)
In article <34647@sun.uucp> cramer@sun.UUCP (Sam Cramer) writes: >Chuq and Zigurd write defending Hypercard against attack on inconsistent >user interface grounds. I beg to differ. > >I find the non-standard user interface of Hypercard most distressing. The >strongest point of the Macintosh is its simple and consistent user interface. > >The non-standard interface of Hypercard is a giant step backward. Hypercard >is a great application, with a lousy user interface - lousy because it is >not consistent with the vast majority of Mac applications. I'm amazed >that it made it out in its current form. While the MacUser criticism is >overstated, the basic point is valid: Hypercard does not conform to the >Mac user interface. > >Sam Cramer {cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!cramer cramer@sun.com Remember MacPaint? Yup! Written by Bill Atkinson? Yup! Was it a brilliant, seminal piece of work? Yup! Did it meet the Mac user interface guidelines then? No!!! Did anybody care (then)? Not apparently. Does anybody care now? Yup! That's why Ann Arbor, ... came out with Fullpaint, ... Have you seen Hypercard? Yup! Written by Bill Atkinson? Yup! Is it a brilliant, seminal piece of work? Yup! Does it meet the Mac user interface guidelines now? No!!! Does anybody care? Well, now we (and Apple) should know better. Will we see FullCard soon? (Well, maybe a bit after we see FullWrite :-)) (I think you all get my message. Yes, both of them) Sounds like another opportunity out there! -- Rich Straka ihnp4!ihlpf!straka Advice for the day: "MSDOS - just say no."
john@felix.UUCP (John Gilbert) (12/01/87)
In article <749@auscso.UUCP> mentat@auscso.UUCP (Robert Dorsett) writes: >Hypercard's been likened as the new Applesoft (for those of you whose memories >don't extend in that direction, Applesoft was the very fast BASIC inter- >preter built into Apple ]['s): something that one can crank up relatively fast >and get some "useful" work done in. Unfortunately, it is CLEARLY producing >the same quality of software that Applesoft did. One point of my previous posting is that Applesoft (read HyperCard) does not produce applications, the user produces (designs) the programs, for which Applesoft (read HyperCard) generates the actions in the form of executable code. HyperCard's tools are weak in areas, but that can still change. > Anyone remember those Apple >ads in 1981-82 promoting the II because of its "massive program reserve," >which was listed at 30,000-45,000 programs? The bulk of which were utterly >unusable or pure trash. > >Hypercard's going to give a lot of relative novices the power to CREATE stuff. >They are not under the pressure that both hackers and professional developers >have been to create standardized software (it's STILL a miracle that there >haven't been more PD programs distributed running in xyz environment's >"development" shell). It is impossible to contest that Hypercard's really >neat, and will be useful for a lot of people. But I think that the overall >quality of software for the Mac will suffer as a consequence: people will >(and have) create embarassing software, and proudly distribute it by uploading >their creations to BBS's or distributing copies through user groups. I don't >think that type of propagation will speak well for the Mac, as a whole. And >let's not even mention the massive SIZE of Hypercard stacks. I do NOT think >that Hypercard "developers" are under the same pressure to be con- >sistent as the people who acutally own copies of Inside Mac. You seem to feel there is a big threat from "novices" obscuring the market with poorly designed applications. I still contend that you can do it well, or do it poorly in either the HyperCard or the Toolbox environments. There is every bit as much potential to create poor interfaces with the toolbox if you choose not to follow the guidelines. There IS a HyperCard UI Guidelines document in the APDA kit, perhaps the wrong place to get it, but it exists. I also believe there WERE alot of poorly designed applications written with the Toolbox. They just don't survive long. People tend not to pass along things they do not find useful or appealing. I have a bunch of public domain applications and DAs that barely got tried because they were so obviously non-standard and confusing. I agree that HyperCard will encourage more "non-programmers" to produce applications, and I think that is a good thing. But inexperienced people can still do bad things even with great tools. Given the complexity of the toolbox, even more so. I guess my point is, what justification is there that the same person would necessarily do better with the Toolbox than with HyperCard? If you are responsible about your design, you will (perhaps struggle to) find a way in HyperCard to do it well. You may have to write some XCMDs. I agree that HyperCard has a way to go, but I think it can still get to a level of comercial usefulness given its current starting point. John G. -- John Gilbert !trwrb!felix!john