tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (03/27/91)
It's true that Mac users master more apps than PC users. This is because it takes more Mac apps than PC apps to get your work done! The Mac fulfills the Marching Morons theory. The user is as clueless as ever about what he's doing, but he looks a lot better doing it. -- Knowing when to optimize is ==>/ Tom Neff as important as knowing how. /<== tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM
akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) (03/27/91)
In article <444@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> brendan@cs.uq.oz.au writes: >Perhaps the philosophy is that people should be spending time learning >their application instead of learning the machine. This seems to work >since Mac users find time to learn 5-6 different applications. The Mac >machine has a small set of skills to learn and they are of utility >in every application. I *believe* that you are quoting from some studies that said that Mac users typically learn 5-6 applications, but PC users learn fewer. As a researcher in user interfaces I would like to see the research (not that I am doubting its findings), to learn what the populations were, and what kinds of jobs they were doing so that I can put the research into perspective. I don't know of any research comparing Windows 3.0 and the Mac, though I have seen research from earlier versions of Windows, which favor the Mac. "The literature" on human computer interfaces talks about these issues to some extent. It is easier to learn a new application if its user interface is similar to that of another application that you have used. Hence the Apple Style guides and the CUI for windows which define in some detail what applications should look like for their respective platforms. But these findings need to be taken into context. I don't know what the 5-6 applications described were, but my guess is they included one or two "major" applications (word processor/spreadsheet etc), and a 4-5 utility type applications, or applications where the user had minor knowledge of the application. This is a *major* improvement over the DOS world, where the interfaces were so different that users would not touch other applications (my perception), but the battle is not over. I feel (MHO) that an application like Word (substitute your favourite 'major' application here) is so complex to use that just a consistent user interface will not be enough to "master" the application. So a user proficient in, say, PaintBrush/MacPaint might be able to quickly do a simple document in Word, but would not be able to produce a complex document (say chapters, tables etc) without investing a fair amount of time learning the application. My personal experience has been that users I help with Word/Excel/Pagemaker (users who use them every working day), still have major trouble using it. This is both on Windows 3 and Mac. So, I personally take all the noise about ease of use, consistency, and transfer of knowledge with a grain of salt. >since Mac users find time to learn 5-6 different applications. The Mac >machine has a small set of skills to learn and they are of utility >in every application. You could say that the "small set of skills" that the "Mac machine has" are in essence those addressed by the programmer's style guides by, say, the Mac and Windows. I argue that these are elementary compared to the skills/knowledge required by 'major' applications, and so are not enough to learn major applications. In this particular aspect, I don't see a difference between Windows 3.0 and the Mac. kartik -- Anant Kartik Mithal akm@cs.uoregon.edu Research Assistant, (503)346-4408 (msgs) Department of Computer Science, (503)346-3989 (direct) University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1202
CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu (Christopher Tate) (03/27/91)
In article <1991Mar27.033317.23763@cs.uoregon.edu>, akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) says: >[...] >I feel (MHO) that an application like Word (substitute your favourite >'major' application here) is so complex to use that just a consistent >user interface will not be enough to "master" the application. [...] There's a crucial point here, though -- the time required to achieve *basic* proficiency at a Mac application is vastly lessened as soon as the user has learned just one from scratch. Since the user interface paradigm is strictly enforced (except in Microsoft apps :-), basic editing skills, etc. are easily transferred when learning your way around new programs. I have it on apparently reputable word (from William Woody et alia) that the user interface guidelines for Windows are not as rigorously defined as those for the Mac; they seem more a set of suggestions than the N Commandments. Some time ago, Apple realized that "drift" in developers' use of the interface tools provided with the Mac was causing damage to the inter-program skill transferral I mentioned above, and began publishing its Human Interface Guidelines (and started spreading rumors about the User Interface Thought Police :-). I'd be very interested in knowing how different the user interfaces for, say, WordPerfect and Microsoft Word are under Windows 3.0. These are two very popular applications that have extremely different command- key usages in their straight DOS versions; how have they converged in translation to Windows? ------- Christopher Tate | etaT rehpotsirhC Bitnet: cxt105@psuvm | mvusp@501txc :tentiB Uucp: ...!psuvax1!psuvm.bitnet!cxt105 | 501txc!tentib.mvusp!1xavusp!... :pcuU Internet: cxt105@psuvm.psu.edu | ude.usp.mvusp@501txc :tenretnI
brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) (03/27/91)
In <1991Mar27.033317.23763@cs.uoregon.edu> akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes: >I feel (MHO) that an application like Word (substitute your favourite >'major' application here) is so complex to use that just a consistent >user interface will not be enough to "master" the application. So a >user proficient in, say, PaintBrush/MacPaint might be able to quickly >do a simple document in Word, but would not be able to produce a >complex document (say chapters, tables etc) without investing a fair >amount of time learning the application. Very true, but what is important is that more time be spent learning the application rather than the application interface. For example I have quite a bit of experience working with document preparation tools, so I have a fair idea what I want to do when I start working on a document. With the Mac I find that once you know what you want to do, it is just a matter of looking through the menus for a likely looking command, nasty manuals and indexes are generally avoided. Compare this to LaTeX where I can generally forget the correct pnuemonic for a command I used just yesterday and finding it in the manual always takes 10 minutes. Of course MSWord is not the best from this point of view, neither is HyperCard 2.0. What is the command key that releases access to the authoring menu items????? In any case you have to have some experience with the application area to make any reasonable use of an application. -- Brendan Mahony | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz Department of Computer Science | heretic: someone who disgrees with you University of Queensland | about something neither of you knows Australia | anything about.
donnel@helix.nih.gov (Donald A. Lehn) (03/27/91)
> >I have it on apparently reputable word (from William Woody et alia) >that the user interface guidelines for Windows are not as rigorously >defined as those for the Mac; they seem more a set of suggestions >than the N Commandments. Some time ago, Apple realized that "drift" >in developers' use of the interface tools provided with the Mac was >causing damage to the inter-program skill transferral I mentioned >above, and began publishing its Human Interface Guidelines (and >started spreading rumors about the User Interface Thought Police :-). > >I'd be very interested in knowing how different the user interfaces >for, say, WordPerfect and Microsoft Word are under Windows 3.0. These >are two very popular applications that have extremely different command- >key usages in their straight DOS versions; how have they converged in >translation to Windows? > >------- >Christopher Tate Just what the world needs a Windows Interface Guidelines enforcement team. Hey maybe all of us Windows users can chip in $10 each and hire a bunch of thugs who will monitor all Windows programmers and if they see a programmer who uses an ounce of creativity and who tries to make his/her product somewhat different they will superglue their fingers to their keyboards. ;-) Christopher, lighten up. Don't you think it would be a tad bit stupid for all Windows wordprocessors to be identical? Why would we then need more than one vendor? The key to a good program is to make it as intuitive as possible. If this can only be achieved by breaking some arbitralily defined standard than so be it. The arguments made about the Mac or Windows being better than the other based on different programs on each are rubbish. I've use Pagemaker on both the Mac and with Windows and I could easily switch between the machines with no problems. The key here is that the programmers at Aldus chose to make the two products virtually identical. What I really find interesting is that a Mac user would ask for "standard" interfaces. Isn't that what the people at Apple are against. Aren't they the bozos who are suing Microsoft for making windows look like a Mac. Imagine all of the lawsuits that would be brought if Wordperfect were to make its new Windows wordprocessor look identical to wfw. Don
dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) (03/28/91)
CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu (Christopher Tate) writes: >There's a crucial point here, though -- the time required to achieve >*basic* proficiency at a Mac application is vastly lessened as soon >as the user has learned just one from scratch. Since the user interface >paradigm is strictly enforced (except in Microsoft apps :-), basic >editing skills, etc. are easily transferred when learning your way >around new programs. Great! Ok...now what about ADVANCED proficiency...doing complex tasks? This concept is what I am currently harping on. -- Dave Hayes - dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov - ames!elroy!dxh One day, a Fool was in the village mill, filling his bag with a little bit of every other person's wheat. "Why are you doing that?" someone asked. "Because I am a Fool" "Why don't you then fill other people's bags with your own wheat?" "Then," the Fool answered, "I would be more of a fool."
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) (03/28/91)
Something deep inside me is saying "Keep out of this flame war..." But... In article <61034444@bfmny0.BFM.COM> tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: >It's true that Mac users master more apps than PC users. Is this true? I work in an environment with a lot of both kinds of users. Mac users in general know of and have toyed with more kinds of applications (read: they tend to have many illicit copies of everything their friends have), but few that I know of have *mastered* more than a few apps. By mastered I mean knows inside and out. If someone can't tell you how to enter a section break or a formula in MacWord, they haven't mastered it. Most Mac users I know know enough about the apps they use to get by. They get work done, and that is good and as it should be, but they don't often do things the "best" way, such as by using a feature they are unaware of. "Masters" will use such features. When I think of "master" three kinds of users come to mind: old WordStar users (the ones who could patch the program with DEBUG to change a feature they didn't like), 1-2-3 users (the ones who refuse to use anything else because they know 1-2-3 so well--and because it's probably all they really need), and WordPerfect users (the ones who can tell you the F-key for any command you ask without referring to the template). The general contention is that Mac users use more apps than PC users. This is probably true, possibly because: + many PCs are used as dedicated-task machines--just think of all the copies of WordPerfect sold to turn a PC into a better typewriter for clerical staff to use. + sharing PC software is more difficult because of multiple disks/setup options and such or maybe... >This is because it takes more Mac apps than PC apps to get your work done! although I'm not sure I agree here. The $64K question, of course, is where do us Windows users fit into all this? I'd imagine from what I've read on this group that most Windows users that have access to many apps toy with them all, eagerly. Master them? Quick: what's the command in Winword to move a selection without cut/pasting it? >The Mac fulfills the Marching Morons theory. The user is as clueless as >ever about what he's doing, but he looks a lot better doing it. There is certainly pre-selection at work here. A voluntary Mac user is one because s/he wants a machine that can be used without having to learn about the machine per-se, in general. A voluntary PC user probably knows that DOS requires some learnin' and is prepared for this--if not eager to learn something new. Thus it would not be surprising that Mac users don't know the depths of their systems (or want to!) as much as typical PC users. Just compare the major PC and Mac magazines--would a Mac magazine ever publish assembly listings or hardware I/O descriptions like PC Mag does? Disclaimer: I've made a lot of generalizations based on my experiences at work and in the dorms at school (which is predominantly Mac-oriented). Your milage may vary. Aaron Wallace
ejbehr@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Eric Behr) (03/28/91)
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov writes: >CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu (Christopher Tate) writes: >>There's a crucial point here, though -- the time required to achieve >>*basic* proficiency at a Mac application is vastly lessened as soon >>as the user has learned just one from scratch. Since the user interface >>paradigm is strictly enforced (except in Microsoft apps :-), basic >>editing skills, etc. are easily transferred when learning your way >>around new programs. > >Great! Ok...now what about ADVANCED proficiency...doing complex tasks? > >This concept is what I am currently harping on. I noticed that... My observations (relatively small sample) show that about 95% of microcomputer users have very basic needs. Some of them even complain about the "complexity" of the Mac OS. Like Dave Matuszek, I've spent many a night passionately debugging assembly code for a CDC Cyber, struggling with the (decent) Burroughs OS, doing stuff on a PC... After I got the Mac, I noticed with some regret that those things were simply a waste of time, art for art's sake, etc. I wrote my PhD thesis on a DEC Rainbow, and I'm mad every time I think about how much more *thinking* I could have done (as opposed to fiddling with settings, editors etc.) if I then had a Mac and a Symbol font... You are a computer professional, you say, and you find the Mac lacking? Aha, that's a different story. Why don't you find a good Unix box and do your stuff on it? I don't think anyone here is claiming that Mac is so great that the Alliants, Suns, Coherents and maybe even Crays should run away and go out of business... As you see from the address, I do use other machines when I need them. If a complex formatting task is too difficult to do on a Mac, I just ftp it elsewhere, use grep or something, and get it back. Sure, the Mac could use some gadget with which you could use line commands, batch processing, manipulate directories en masse, do core dumps at a keystroke, etc. etc... Rings a bell? You guessed right: A/UX. Fortunately, it's *not* a part of the ordinary Mac OS, because if it were, then trying to isolate the "easy" stuff from the "difficult" would take me so much time that I'd have to get a second-hand Rainbow to do the daily chores... Motto: contrary to popular belief, you can't have it all. >-- >Dave Hayes - dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov - ames!elroy!dxh -- Eric Behr, Illinois State University, Mathematics Department Internet: ejbehr@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu Bitnet: ebehr@ilstu
ejbehr@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Eric Behr) (03/28/91)
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: > >The Mac fulfills the Marching Morons theory. The user is as clueless as >ever about what he's doing, but he looks a lot better doing it. That's the point, Tom! I couldn't have put it better myself. I wish you posted your critiques more often. -- Eric Behr, Illinois State University, Mathematics Department Internet: ejbehr@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu Bitnet: ebehr@ilstu
peirce@outpost.UUCP (Michael Peirce) (03/28/91)
In article <61034444@bfmny0.BFM.COM>, tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: > > The Mac fulfills the Marching Morons theory. The user is as clueless as > ever about what he's doing, but he looks a lot better doing it. Sort of like those morons (your word) who don't know a thing about the internal combustion engine. And to think they actually are allowed to drive a car. There ain't no justice! -- michael -- Michael Peirce -- outpost!peirce@claris.com -- Peirce Software -- Suite 301, 719 Hibiscus Place -- Macintosh Programming -- San Jose, California 95117 -- & Consulting -- (408) 244-6554, AppleLink: PEIRCE
cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) (03/29/91)
From article <1991Mar28.025502.10913@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu>, by ejbehr@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Eric Behr): > dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov writes: > If a complex formatting task is too difficult to > do on a Mac, I just ftp it elsewhere, use grep or something, and get it > back. HEY!!!! since I am such a prolific MAC user :<), I want to know what you use for your ftp software. I gotta buy some and don't know what to but. (sorry to digress here). |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Tom Hite | The views expressed by me | |Manager, Product development | are mine, not necessarily | |CADSI (Computer Aided Design Software Inc. | the views of CADSI. | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
doner@henri.ucsb.edu (John Doner) (03/29/91)
In article <1991Mar28.025502.10913@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> ejbehr@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Eric Behr) writes: >dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov writes: >>Great! Ok...now what about ADVANCED proficiency...doing complex tasks? >> >>This concept is what I am currently harping on. ... >You are a computer professional, you say, and you find the Mac lacking? >Aha, that's a different story. Why don't you find a good Unix box and do >your stuff on it? I don't think anyone here is claiming that Mac is so >great that the Alliants, Suns, Coherents and maybe even Crays should run >away and go out of business... As you see from the address, I do use other >machines when I need them. If a complex formatting task is too difficult to >do on a Mac, I just ftp it elsewhere, use grep or something, and get it >back. >Sure, the Mac could use some gadget with which you could use line commands, >batch processing, manipulate directories en masse, do core dumps at a >keystroke, etc. etc... Rings a bell? You guessed right: A/UX. Fortunately, Most of the time, I find the Mac's interface pleasing and convenient. There are some situations, however, where it's nice to be able to run a script or use a command line interface for some other reason. So I use MPW. That offers everything you can want from a cli, and does it from within a gui context. You don't need to spring for A/UX, MPW can be had for $150, and even less if you get it bundled with some other product. I use Multifinder, and keep MPW running in one partition. Another good combination I've used involves an X-windows terminal running emacs in one window and separate shells in others. But I still prefer my Mac. This crap about how "professionals" need only a cli is ridiculous; and the dogmatic attitudes expressed by some in this discussion (not you, Eric) serve mainly to show just how UNprofessional they are. (WHY can't I resist getting involved in these GUI vs. CLI flame wars??) John E. Doner doner@henri.ucsb.edu (805)893-3941 Dept. Mathematics, UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA 93106
chas@netcom.COM (Chuck Fisher) (03/29/91)
In article <61034444@bfmny0.BFM.COM> tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: >It's true that Mac users master more apps than PC users. > >This is because it takes more Mac apps than PC apps to get your work done! > >The Mac fulfills the Marching Morons theory. The user is as clueless as >ever about what he's doing, but he looks a lot better doing it. It's curious that you hold this attitude. Microsoft and Zenith Data Systems cosponsored a study entitled "The Benefits of the Graphical User Interface, A Report on New Primary Research." The study was conducted by Temple, Barker & Sloane to identify differences in the performance of GUI and CLI for applications software. Both experienced users and novices from office environments were used in the study. Novices were split into separate CLI and GUI groups, likewise experienced users were split. All the subjects were given a set of business tasks to complete and the results were scored for speed and accuracy. Users also subjectively rated their experiences during and after the tests. The results of the research supports seven benefits: GUI users (1) work faster and (2) work better (complete more of their tasks accurately) than CLI users and therefore have (3) higher productivity than CLI users. GUI users express (4) lower frustration and perceive (5) lower fatigue after working with microcomputers. GUI users are better able than CLI users to (6) self-teach and explore and to (7) learn more capabilities of applications. Three conclusions were drawn: GUI generates (1) higher output per work-hour, through higher productivity, (2) higher output per employee, because of lower levels of frustration and fatigue, and (3) greater return on information technology investment than CLI, because users master more capabilities and require less training and support. This study was obviously designed to convince Corporate America to switch to Windows 3 by showing that employees would be more productive. The findings appear to be at odds with your own anecdotal experience. I believe that the research results would apply equally to CLI on a PC versus the Mac. My own experience as an individual and as a computer support provider is in line with the study's findings. (I received a free copy of the report from Microsoft.) Chuck -- Chuck Fisher Work: (800) 359-7997 chas@netcom.com <--- Note change Home: (415) 964-2819 {apple,claris,amdahl,tandem}!netcom!chas
chas@netcom.COM (Chuck Fisher) (03/29/91)
In my last posting I omitted the following information:
Hardware and operating systems differences were minimized. Hardware
was configured to be as equivalent as possible, and the participants
worked only with applications. The CLI environment was represented by
IBM-compatible PCs running DOS. To represent the GUI environment,
Macintoshes were used in the novice test. In the experienced-user
test, a mix of Macs and PCs using Windows were used. There was "No
statistically significant difference in the results for the Macintosh
and the IBM-compatible PC-based GUI using Windows."
Chuck
--
Chuck Fisher Work: (800) 359-7997
chas@netcom.com <--- Note change Home: (415) 964-2819
{apple,claris,amdahl,tandem}!netcom!chas gpsteffl@sunee.waterloo.edu (Glenn Patrick Steffler) (03/29/91)
In article <91086.010558CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu> CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu (Christopher Tate) writes: >I have it on apparently reputable word (from William Woody et alia) >that the user interface guidelines for Windows are not as rigorously >defined as those for the Mac; they seem more a set of suggestions >than the N Commandments. Some time ago, Apple realized that "drift" Horse pucky! The CUA (common user access) guidelines set by IBM/Microsoft/et all have a large amount of rules and pointers that *should* be followed. If some developer decides not to use the interaction models and styles or if the program has a substantially different interface than any other, it will be left to market forces as to whether the application succeeds. The development effort here at Gold Disk follows the CUA spec rigidly, while providing some <more than> inovative adaptations to the common Windows look and feel. The layout of menus is strictly adhered to by most profession applications simply because it only makes sense to use a consistent interface. Again market forces, and software reviews generally take care of the bonehead apps that don't. From personal experience, I *know* that Apple takes a non-spectator approach to interface layout, functionality. Several of our Macintosh developers and managers have been to the Apple proving grounds to make sure our *soon to be released* Animation package met with all --(please ignore that blatent ad)-- rules/regulations etc. No such trial is needed for Windows and Microsoft because they assume that we are a professional development house which knows it's in our best interest to provide a consistent interface. Who's to say we won't? What's to say others haven't? Just throwing branches on the fire. Leave it to me to open my big mouth. Anyway, have fun; live with your indiscretions, and eat well. >Christopher Tate | etaT rehpotsirhC >Bitnet: cxt105@psuvm | mvusp@501txc :tentiB >Uucp: ...!psuvax1!psuvm.bitnet!cxt105 | 501txc!tentib.mvusp!1xavusp!... :pcuU >Internet: cxt105@psuvm.psu.edu | ude.usp.mvusp@501txc :tenretnI Yikes! Am I seeing double, or is this stupid terminal in 40 column inverse mirror text mode with interlocking separations? Hmmm. -- Co-Op Scum "Bo doesn't know software" - George Brett "The galaxial hearth steams the sea as the sky blood red embrasses darkness" -John Constantine (HellBlazer) Glenn Steffler
ejbehr@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Eric Behr) (03/29/91)
gpsteffl@sunee.waterloo.edu (Glenn Patrick Steffler) writes: >Horse pucky! [...] >From personal experience, I *know* that Apple takes a non-spectator >approach to interface layout, functionality. Several of our Macintosh >developers and managers have been to the Apple proving grounds to >make sure our *soon to be released* Animation package met with all > --(please ignore that blatent ad)-- >rules/regulations etc. No such trial is needed for Windows and >Microsoft because they assume that we are a professional development > You'd better believe it, folks... My good friend wrote a nice Mac app. which didn't exactly conform, got on a plane one day, and hasn't been heard from since! Expose Apple hit squads while you can! Windows fans, unite! -- Eric Behr, Illinois State University, Mathematics Department Internet: ejbehr@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu Bitnet: ebehr@ilstu
Jim.Spencer@p510.f22.n282.z1.fidonet.org (Jim Spencer) (03/30/91)
Aaron Wallace writes in a message to All AW> Is this true? I work in an environment with a lot of both kinds AW> of users. Mac users in general know of and have toyed with more AW> kinds of applications (read: they tend to have many illicit copies AW> of everything their friends have), but few that I know of have AW> *mastered* more than a few apps. By mastered I mean knows inside AW> and out. If someone can't tell you how to enter a section break AW> or a formula in MacWord, they haven't mastered it. AW> Most Mac users I know know enough about the apps they use to AW> get by. They get work done, and that is good and as it should AW> be, but they don't often do things the "best" way, such as by AW> using a feature they are unaware of. The weakness of your argument is that the same is true of DOS users. My job requires sending Word Perfect documents to other users by E-Mail who have completely different hardware setups. I'm constantly amazed at the folks who will call me who don't know how to select a printer or can't restart page numbering or any of the other things that mastery would imply. The point is that studies show that a user of a particular competence will have that competence in more Mac applications than they will in DOS applications. This makes sense because they only have to learn the basics once do to an extremely high uniformity in user interface between applications.
merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) (04/02/91)
brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes: >... Compare this to LaTeX where I >can generally forget the correct pnuemonic for a command... OOoooo, steampunk! --- Merlyn LeRoy