jpd00964@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (09/22/89)
/* Written 8:59 pm Sep 19, 1989 by ari@eleazar.dartmouth.edu in uxa.cso.uiuc.edu:comp.sys.mac.programmer */ /* ---------- "Time for standard cmd-keys & menu c" ---------- */ >The mac is supposed to present a simple and common user interface to all >users. This simple but powerful concept is being ignored over and over >again by many programs. It is time Macintosh programmers agree on >a standard for such things: What's wrong with something like Microphone II or Word 4.0 which lets the user assign any command key to anything they want? In reality, there are only about 5 command keys that make any sense to have standard. z,x,c,v,s. What does search mean in a drawing program? Or a calculator? Or any of the other miriad types of programs. Each programmer needs to come up with the things in his program are done often, and assign something for those items. If it's any consolance, each programmer is going to use other programs similar to what he is writing, so it's likely he will use the same keys. So, given enough time, eventually, maybe there will just be a defacto standard. Michael Rutman "Let's not see an ANSI command standard"
erics@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Eric Schlegel) (09/24/89)
In article <227700045@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> jpd00964@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > >In reality, there are only about 5 command keys that make any sense to have >standard. z,x,c,v,s. What does search mean in a drawing program? Or >a calculator? Or any of the other miriad types of programs. You may be missing the point, though. True, a drawing program may not implement a search function. BUT IF IT DID, it should use a STANDARD key equivalent - and that's where Mac applications are lacking. My favorite example is SuperPaint 2.0. cmd-W is near to being a standard for closing the active window, but in SuperPaint cmd-W is "Zoom In" and cmd-J is "Close". We do need a large selection of standard keyboard equivalents. They may not be implemented in every application, but if the corresponding functionality is there, so should be the keyboard equivalent. Or at any rate, that's my $.02. Eric Schlegel Eric.Schlegel@dartmouth.edu ----------- Disclaimer? I don't even have a job yet this term! Don't talk to me about no stinkin' disclaimer. -- ------ Eric Schlegel | DISCLAIMER: I'm just a poor college student, eric.schlegel@dartmouth.edu | which means I'm not responsible for what I | say and I can't pay you if you sue me anyway.
czychi@ethz.UUCP (Gary Czychi) (09/25/89)
In article <227700045@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> jpd00964@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >... >In reality, there are only about 5 command keys that make any sense to have >standard. z,x,c,v,s. What does search mean in a drawing program? Or >... >Michael Rutman No, I don't think so. There are two more command key equivalents which should be mentioned and also be a part of the human interface guidelines: Command - w for close, because nearly every application has a window to close hasn't it? I don't know why the letter 'w' was used here, but anyway it is a de facto standard. (Even MS Word has it :-) Command - p for print. Yes, 'p' like in 'print' and not like in 'plain'. First, not every application is a word processor where you need to choose 'plain' and second, a good word processor should be able treverse for instance 'bold' in, with a good programm you can hit the appropriate command key combo again to reverse the chosen style - and last not least: What do you use more 'print' or 'plain' ?? I think, this is very important for future software and that there should be standard there. I even use and promote the use of these command key equivalents for every application which is written in a foreign language because everyone who has to use software which is written for another country don't want to have to learn different command keys for every application he uses! If you're interested in a discussion on that topic, please contact me, I'd be glad to share my ideas of 'human' interface. Gary Gary T. Czychi University of St.Gallen, Switzerland CZYCHI@CSGHSG52.bitnet (preferred) CZYCHI@ETHZ.uucp Tel.: --41 / 71 / 28 30 55
d88-jwa@nada.kth.se (Jon W{tte) (09/25/89)
In article <2062@ethz.UUCP> czychi@bernina.ethz.ch.UUCP (Gary Czychi) writes: >In article <227700045@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> jpd00964@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >>In reality, there are only about 5 command keys that make any sense to have >>standard. z,x,c,v,s. What does search mean in a drawing program? Or >No, I don't think so. There are two more command key equivalents which >should be mentioned and also be a part of the human interface guidelines: > [ W for close and P for print ] Well, de-facto standard should be N for New (even though english is not my native language...) as it is that way in most applications. And, of course, the "Q" for quit is important to keep ! (At least I think so). Speaking of "Q"-s, what is the reason for you wiring COmmand-Q to Shut Down in the Finder making the Human Interface Thought Police come after you ? What's the great and noble cause that says: Don't do that ? h+@nada.kth.se --
awd@dbase.UUCP (Alastair Dallas) (09/26/89)
In article <2062@ethz.UUCP>, czychi@ethz.UUCP (Gary Czychi) writes: > ...last not least: What do > you use more 'print' or 'plain' ?? Plain. I type hundreds of words and make dozens of style changes, then I print exactly once. You give me your standard cmd keys in a word processor and I'll not use it unless I can hack the cmd keys with ResEdit. Making the leap from "standards are good" to "if you only look at the programs I like, there is a de facto standard" to "let's institutionalize the de facto standard" is dangerous. The proponents of this approach on the net so far seem heedless of the danger. /alastair/
jem@cs.hut.fi (Johan Myreen) (09/26/89)
In article <2062@ethz.UUCP> czychi@ethz.UUCP (Gary Czychi) writes: >key combo again to reverse the chosen style - and last not least: What do >you use more 'print' or 'plain' ?? Plain. I don't think the Print command needs a command key equivalent. You don't save much time by choosing the print command with the mouse; printing is such a slow process anyway. Toggling (for instance) bold style doesn't revert any other styles I might have chosen. -- Johan Myreen jem@spica.hut.fi
nilesinc@well.UUCP (Avi Rappoport) (09/26/89)
I managed to get into the MacWeek ID89 (Interface Design) Conference last week. I have written a long report, and a summary. If people want me to post either or both, or distribute it, please send me mail. Avi -- Help me justify my online bills: ask me EndNote questions, please! -- Avi Rappoport nilesinc@well.UUCP, Niles.Assoc on AppleLink 415-655-6666 2000 Hearst, Berkeley, CA 94709
mce@tc.fluke.COM (Brian McElhinney) (09/28/89)
In article <253@dbase.UUCP> awd@dbase.UUCP (Alastair Dallas) writes: >Making the leap from "standards are good" to "if you only look at >the programs I like, there is a de facto standard" to "let's institutionalize >the de facto standard" is dangerous. The proponents of this approach on >the net so far seem heedless of the danger. Dangerous? The lack of a standards for command keys has led to a proliferation of incompatible usages, resulting in user confusion. That's a bad thing, as the Human Interface Guidelines recognize. Standards for open, print, and close are no more dangerous than for cut, copy and paste. I've heard that the Human Interface Guidelines have stagnated for much the same reasons as you give. Upper management at Apple are simply happy with the Way Things Are (aka, stagnation). The proliferation of INITs, etc, that alter and expand the Human Interface show how wrong this attitude is. A real improvement would be a Command Key Manager. Let each program register which menu entries correspond to standard types (open, close, new, cut, paste, plain, bold, etc), and have the manager select the command key the *user* wants (selected via the control panel). Brian McElhinney mce@tc.fluke.com
ech@cbnewsk.ATT.COM (ned.horvath) (09/28/89)
From article <11386@fluke.COM>, by mce@tc.fluke.COM (Brian McElhinney): > A real improvement would be a Command Key Manager. Let each program register > which menu entries correspond to standard types (open, close, new, cut, paste, > plain, bold, etc), and have the manager select the command key the *user* > wants (selected via the control panel). I've gone on record here on this issue before: follow the guidelines where they make sense for your application. Follow convention (e.g. cmd-W for close) where they make sense for you app. Innovate where THAT makes sense for your app. If Apple management are satisfied with the guidelines, perhaps it's because the users themselves exert a greater pressure on developers to conform than Apple can. It certainly works that way with products I've shipped, and that is as it should be. Finally, there are several products available (Tempo, QuicKeys, even MacroMaker) that permit you, or any user, to easily assign whatever keys you want to whatever actions you want. Quick, easy, cheap, reliable, and supports the original, and ultimate, guideline: Empower the user! =Ned Horvath=
d88-jwa@nada.kth.se (Jon W{tte) (09/29/89)
In article <1095@cbnewsk.ATT.COM> ech@cbnewsk.ATT.COM (ned.horvath) writes: >Finally, there are several products available (Tempo, QuicKeys, even >MacroMaker) that permit you, or any user, to easily assign whatever keys ^^^^^^^^^^ >you want to whatever actions you want. Quick, easy, cheap, reliable, and ^^^^^^^^ >supports the original, and ultimate, guideline: Where's the smiley ? Because you were joking, weren't you ? Macro Maker is FAR from reliable, far from easy and even far from intuitive. I can't see why Apple decided to include this in the system s/w. > Empower the user! Yeah, right ! Let him write his OWN program :') -- A closed mouth gathers no feet.
mjm@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Michael McClennen) (10/04/89)
My contribution to the "should command-P be 'Print' or 'Plain'" debate is this: It depends upon what you do for a living. I write programs, and use a text editor that doesn't even have a style menu. So I prefer command-P to be 'Print' (what else would I use it for?) If I wrote documentation with styles, or wrote prose for a living, I would probably want command-P to be 'Plain'. Isn't Resedit wonderful? Michael McClennen (mjm@dartmouth.edu) Dartmouth College Academic Computing
mce@tc.fluke.COM (Brian McElhinney) (10/06/89)
In article <15914@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> mjm@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Michael McClennen) writes: > >It depends upon what you do for a living. I write programs, and use a text >editor that doesn't even have a style menu. So I prefer command-P to be >'Print' (what else would I use it for?) If I wrote documentation with styles, >or wrote prose for a living, I would probably want command-P to be 'Plain'. > >Isn't Resedit wonderful? I assume you meant that in the spirit of ":-)" but, to be literal, hell no. If you write documents for a living, you shouldn't have to touch something as obscure, non-standard, and out-and-out *dangerous* as ResEdit. Putting on my software management hat, the sheer number of revisions to ResEdit makes me wonder if it should be thrown out. As programmers, we often get so attached to "our" code that we can't see the forest for the trees. Starting the source code from scratch isn't as bad as it seems, since you still have the knowledge that went into the original. You usually end up with a cleaner, more robust, maintainable, and extendible software package. And often faster than the *real* time reworking buggy code would take. Brian McElhinney mce@tc.fluke.com