Scott D. Camp <Q8N@psuvm.psu.edu> (07/14/90)
In article <3097@gmdzi.UUCP>, strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) says: >The problem with the Multifinder is not so much one of the Multifinder >itself, but of the applications running under it. Most of them are >written under the assumption that they have the whole screen area at >their disposal - no need to make windows resizeable, zoomable, or to be >able to hide some portions of the application - all things which are >standard in the Windows world. This is why many Mac people are so proud >about their Macs ability to drive more than monitor and to >create one big desktop on them. They need it. I have certainly enjoyed most of the comments from Wolfgang as I noted to him previously in private e-mail. However, I'm not sure I understand this point. The program I am using to interface with my local mainframe computer, Term 4.5.1, certainly has the capability to resize the window. In fact, most of the programs I commonly use have this capability (Minitab 6.2, SuperPaint 2.0a, Wingz 1.1, and Word 4.0b). Note, that all of these programs are "production" type of programs where I find the use of multifinder to be important. There are some programs I consider to be "production" programs that don't have this feature, namely Family Records in Personal Ancestry File and HyperCard. I'm also not sure about some of my "utility" programs being able to resize the windows (programs such as ResEdit or MacTools Deluxe). However, since I don't usually run these at the same time I run other programs, I don't worry about it and therefore didn't check them as I did the others. Even so, I get tired of resizing Windows on my SE when I return to Finder and want to see the disk or trashcan icons. Therefore, I use MultiFinder 6.1b9 (I hope I go the version number correct--it's the one with the Set Aside option). Even though this is a beta version and not distributed generally with Apple's system software, it appears to be stable and really suits my needs. Also, I tend to trust things more when they come from Apple instead of shareware (before you turn the flame guns on, I am referring to shareware products where I know nothing about the author). Anyway, I don't have the problem using a fairly generic setup that Wolfgang is referring to. Just my thoughts. Scott D. Camp Q8N@PSUVM.PSU.EDU The Pennsylvania State University 305 Oswald Tower University Park, PA 16802 814-863-0121
strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) (07/17/90)
Q8N@psuvm.psu.edu (Scott D. Camp) writes: >In article <3097@gmdzi.UUCP>, strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) says: >>The problem with the Multifinder is not so much one of the Multifinder >>itself, but of the applications running under it. Most of them are >>written under the assumption that they have the whole screen area at >>their disposal - no need to make windows resizeable, zoomable, or to be >>able to hide some portions of the application - all things which are >>standard in the Windows world. This is why many Mac people are so proud >>about their Macs ability to drive more than monitor and to >>create one big desktop on them. They need it. >I have certainly enjoyed most of the comments from Wolfgang as I noted to him >previously in private e-mail. However, I'm not sure I understand this point. Perhaps I didn't make my point clear enough, or perhaps I do not know enough about the Multifinder. So please let me try again, and correct me if I'm wrong. Multifinder is a relatively late addition to the Macintosh interface. My copy of the "Programmer's Introduction to the Macintosh Family" (1988) does not mention it, and the "Technical Introduction..." contains half a page description and a picture, only. A program which was designed before the advent of the Multifinder had no reason to save screen space or to stuff the same information (or as much as possible) into a window of reduced size. It had to share the screen with a static desktop and an occasional DA, only. But even the Multifinder suffers from the original single-application- design: a switch from one application to another one has to replace the menu bar on top of the screen, because there is only one of them. This is more disturbing than MS Windows use of multiple menu bars and the use of highlighting to show the active application with the keyboard focus. Therefore I think that the concurrent *use* of two or more applications (i.e. have two copies of the notepad editor and one kermit running and cut and paste between all three while composing a message, for example) is to my knowledge more common under Windows than on the Mac, which makes it less attractive for applications to give up screen space, on the Mac. (I do not doubt that it is possible to cut and paste between different running application. But how much and how smooth is it used?) Of course this is how a Windows user/programmer with nearly no Macintosh experience (me) sees it, so please take the above statements as a question: is this observation correct? If not, why? >Even so, I get tired of resizing Windows on my SE when I return to Finder and >want to see the disk or trashcan icons. Therefore, I use MultiFinder 6.1b9 (I >hope I go the version number correct--it's the one with the Set Aside option). >Even though this is a beta version and not distributed generally with Apple's >system software, it appears to be stable and really suits my needs. Also, I >tend to trust things more when they come from Apple instead of shareware >(before you turn the flame guns on, I am referring to shareware products where >I know nothing about the author). This indicates that the resizing capability alone is not enough to get applications to share a screen without either confusing or keeping the user busy. MS Windows tries to tackle this problem by giving the user the option to run an application in one of three modes: minimized (i.e. as an icon), normal size (resizeable or not), and maximized (resized to the maximum size the application allowes), and a fast method to switch between these three modes. So, if I want to use two applications concurrently, I put them side by side by resizing the windows. If an application's windows clutter the screen, I shrink it to an icon. If I use an application exclusively for some time, I maximize it. All this is only a click or a keystroke away. And its not a *new* feature of Windows. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
norman@d.cs.okstate.edu (Norman Graham) (07/17/90)
From article <3114@gmdzi.UUCP>, by strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl): > A program which was designed before the advent of the Multifinder > had no reason to save screen space or to stuff the same information > (or as much as possible) into a window of reduced size. It had to > share the screen with a static desktop and an occasional DA, only. This may be so; but as I remember, all the pre-MultiFinder programs I used certainly _did_ provide resizable windows, if for no other reason than to allow the convenient display of multiple documents at the same time. The user decided the amount of screen space taken up by a program. At any rate, your point is moot: MultiFinder has been around long enough that the current versions of most applications are designed with MultiFinder in mind. > But even the Multifinder suffers from the original single-application- > design: a switch from one application to another one has to > replace the menu bar on top of the screen, because there is only > one of them. This is more disturbing than MS Windows use of > multiple menu bars and the use of highlighting to show the > active application with the keyboard focus. You should read Neff Walker and John Smelcer's article in the proceedings of the April 1990 SIGCHI conference. These guys have spent several years designing and experimenting with various kinds of menus (for example, their version of popup menus are about 8% faster than Apple's popups). In summary (if I remember correctly that is), from their paper you can conclude that Apple's "menu bar at the top of the screen" will be greater than 30% faster than a "menu bar in a window" such as in Windows. Go get the paper--it's an interesting read. > Therefore I think that the concurrent *use* of two or more > applications (i.e. have two copies of the notepad editor and > one kermit running and cut and paste between all three > while composing a message, for example) is to my knowledge > more common under Windows than on the Mac, which makes it less > attractive for applications to give up screen space, on the Mac. > (I do not doubt that it is possible to cut and paste between > different running application. But how much and how smooth > is it used?) Don't be ridiculous. Cutting and pasting between documents in different applications (whether the apps are running concurrently or not) has been a hallmark of the Mac since 1984. For example, I just copied 'ridiculous' (first sentence of this paragraph) from my dictionary and pasted it into my terminal emulator. I regularly run 4 to 8 applications concurrently, and I have full cut, copy, and paste between them all. In fact, I can't think of a single application that doesn't have this ability (not counting utilities such as analog clocks, etc). By the way, I can't imagine what copy and paste have to do with the amount of screen space an application uses. Also, the usual situation on the Mac is that applications don't take up _any_ screen space; their document windows do take up screen space, but virtually all applications have resizable document windows so the user can decide how much screen real estate to allocate to each document. I believe this is different from Windows, where each application usually has its own desktop that contains its document windows. Isn't it this 'application desktop' that is minimized, maximized, etc.? Finally, there is little need to run more than one copy of an application at the same time (eg. two notepads in your example) since most Mac applications allow you to have many document windows open at the same time. > Of course this is how a Windows user/programmer with nearly no > Macintosh experience (me) sees it, so please take the above > statements as a question: is this observation correct? If not, why? If you have no Mac experience, then why are you pontificating on the way the Mac and its applications operate? > This [MultiFinder 6.1b9's 'Set Aside' feature] indicates > that the resizing capability alone is not enough > to get applications to share a screen without either confusing > or keeping the user busy. MS Windows tries to tackle this problem > by giving the user the option to run an application in one of three > modes: minimized (i.e. as an icon), normal size (resizeable or not), > and maximized (resized to the maximum size the application allows), > and a fast method to switch between these three modes. As I see it, 'Set Aside' is just an extreme form of Window's 'Minimize' function: The only difference is on the Mac, the application is not reduced to an icon. And again, applications on the Mac don't take up screen real estate (as a rule). I assume you can get screen clutter on Windows also--why else would there be a 'Minimize' feature? > So, if I want to use two applications concurrently, I put them > side by side by resizing the windows. If an application's windows > clutter the screen, I shrink it to an icon. If I use an application > exclusively for some time, I maximize it. All this is only a click or > a keystroke away. And its not a *new* feature of Windows. Sounds like the Mac to me (except for the keystrokes that is). I see no real difference between the Mac and Windows on this point. > Wolfgang Strobl > #include <std.disclaimer.hpp> Norm -- Norman Graham Oklahoma State University Internet: norman@a.cs.okstate.edu Computing and Information Sciences BangPath: 219 Mathematical Sciences Building {cbosgd,rutgers}!okstate!norman Stillwater, OK USA 74078-0599
philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (07/17/90)
In article <3114@gmdzi.UUCP>, strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: [...] > Therefore I think that the concurrent *use* of two or more > applications (i.e. have two copies of the notepad editor and > one kermit running and cut and paste between all three > while composing a message, for example) is to my knowledge > more common under Windows than on the Mac, which makes it less > attractive for applications to give up screen space, on the Mac. > (I do not doubt that it is possible to cut and paste between > different running application. But how much and how smooth > is it used?) > Of course this is how a Windows user/programmer with nearly no > Macintosh experience (me) sees it, so please take the above > statements as a question: is this observation correct? If not, why? No. Some Mac users don't use MultiFinder because 1M isn't enough to make it worthwhile. I use it all the time; screen space is not a serious problem (I use a 1-page monitor; I still coped when I used to use an SE/30). Cut and paste has always been a Mac strong point, long before Windows appeared, and is much enhanced by MultiFinder. Mac applications are expected to always supply the cut and paste functionality using the same menu and same keboard commands. They are also expected to store the clipbaord in both a standard format (TEXT or PICT), as well as their own internal format (which may contain more information). [...] > This indicates that the resizing capability alone is not enough > to get applications to share a screen without either confusing > or keeping the user busy. MS Windows tries to tackle this problem > by giving the user the option to run an application in one of three > modes: minimized (i.e. as an icon), normal size (resizeable or not), > and maximized (resized to the maximum size the application allowes), > and a fast method to switch between these three modes. > > So, if I want to use two applications concurrently, I put them > side by side by resizing the windows. If an application's windows > clutter the screen, I shrink it to an icon. If I use an application > exclusively for some time, I maximize it. All this is only a click or > a keystroke away. And its not a *new* feature of Windows. > The Mac may not iconize in commonly distributed versions of the system, but a similar feature is on the way. For quite some time, zoomable windows have been supported (toggle between 2 sizes). When I use MPW for editing lots of text windows, I use its tile feature to fill the screen with lots of small windows, then temporarily zoom up the 1 or 2 I'm currently interested in. You can certainly put 2 application's windows side by side. Another point... if you can't afford a 19" color monitor, a useful alternative is to buy a 13" color monitor and a 1-page mono. You can drag windows from 1 to the other. Really useful if you need a color preview to look at detail, but can live with mono or grayscale to see the overall layout. How does Windows cope with multiple monitors? Can the user dynamically set the number of grays or colors? Can you add a new (different) monitor just by adding a video card and powering up, or do you have to manually configure it? (On the Mac, everything is automatic, unless you want to change the default settings for number of colors/grays, or the logical layout of the monitors - all easy to change in the Control Panel.) Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
kassarji@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KASSARJIAN STEVEN J) (07/17/90)
In article <3114@gmdzi.UUCP> strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >A program which was designed before the advent of the Multifinder >had no reason to save screen space or to stuff the same information >(or as much as possible) into a window of reduced size. It had to >share the screen with a static desktop and an occasional DA, only. > But no applications (app's) make this assumption now a-days. Additionally, I think it can be stated that supported programs have been "improved" if they were initially at fault. > >[switch of app's -> different menu -> confusing/disturbing] This I do not find troubling at all. In one way, at least, it is clearer in that there is less screen clutter. >(I do not doubt that it is possible to cut and paste between >different running application. But how much and how smooth >is it used?) It is smooth and commonly done. All of my reports, being technical, include at least one MacDraw picture and several Cricket Graph graphs, not to mention equations. Assuming sufficient memory to load all app's there is rarely any problems (those problems are invariable the programmer's fault). In all cases, I am happy to let the current app's window(s) dominate the screen. The only time I want two windows is while programming: Mach 2 Forth commands in the main window and the program and its output in a second. >[description of the "ICON" in ms-windows] This use of icons in ms-windows and on the Apollo Domain nodes I never found to be useful. On an Apollo with the workstation-sized screen there was sufficient space, but little need (on my part). On a PC-sized screen, it seemed to me a complete waste of precious EGA screen space. Of course, the last time I used ms-windows was version 2.? and there were no app's available (at least on that PC in Danmark). > >Wolfgang Strobl >#include <std.disclaimer.hpp> Steve.
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (07/18/90)
----------- In article <1990Jul17.041915.9989@d.cs.okstate.edu>, norman@d.cs.okstate.edu (Norman Graham) writes... >From article <3114@gmdzi.UUCP>, by strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl): >> A program which was designed before the advent of the Multifinder >> had no reason to save screen space or to stuff the same information >> (or as much as possible) into a window of reduced size. It had to >> share the screen with a static desktop and an occasional DA, only. Multifinder was introduced 3 years ago. It seems like a fairly bogus point to be harping on (supposed) deficiencies of pre-MF programs as indicative of some failing in the Mac GUI. Tell me, how well do pre-Windows DOS programs run under Windows 3? Do they take advantage of all of Windows 3's features? No? Does this imply something wrong with Windows 3? Wolfgang, I've been reading these posts for some weeks now, and I must say that I find both your questions and the answers to them stimulating and educational. So, feel free to keep asking; if you want to learn more about the Mac, more power to you. And even if you want to flame it, that's what the net's for. But I find it hard to buy your claim that you are "impartial" and are comparing both systems equally. I think you're fairly clearly in favor of Windows. But hey, maybe we can make you see the light. :-> Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
awessels@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (07/18/90)
In article <3114@gmdzi.UUCP> strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >Therefore I think that the concurrent *use* of two or more >applications (i.e. have two copies of the notepad editor and >one kermit running and cut and paste between all three >while composing a message, for example) is to my knowledge >more common under Windows than on the Mac, which makes it less >attractive for applications to give up screen space, on the Mac. >(I do not doubt that it is possible to cut and paste between >different running application. But how much and how smooth >is it used?) > >Of course this is how a Windows user/programmer with nearly no >Macintosh experience (me) sees it, so please take the above >statements as a question: is this observation correct? If not, why? Well, I've been using MultiFinder since before its release, and I've been doing multiwindow c&p cleanly and easily all this time. MF is more efficient in using screen space since most menus share the menubar. Even before MultiFinder, copy and paste between applications was pretty easy using Switcher. I use Finder on my Mac Plus at work most of the time, and I often use several DAs at once. If you tile the windows carefully, losing only a few pixels of screen space, you can conveniently copy and paste between notebooks, scrapbooks, and whatnot. All it takes to switch is a single click on the window to be copied from or to. No muss, no fuss. Of course, I use 30-40 DAs and as many inits/cdevs to enhance this setup, but I've shown even fairly novice, one application users how to do this (and they've even rediscovered the technique after I've shown it to them.)
kblackne@king.mcs.drexel.edu (Ken Blackney) (07/18/90)
In message <1990Jul17.174049.26778@midway.uchicago.edu>, Robert writes: > Multifinder was introduced 3 years ago. It seems like a fairly bogus > point to be harping on (supposed) deficiencies of pre-MF programs as > indicative of some failing in the Mac GUI. Tell me, how well do > pre-Windows DOS programs run under Windows 3? Do they take advantage > of all of Windows 3's features? No? Does this imply something wrong > with Windows 3? Your question suffers from it own "bogusness". You should really be asking how pre-Windows 3 applications work with Windows 3. DOS is not another revision of the same basic system. (Surely, you will admit that there is a greater difference between DOS and Windows than System 6 with and without MultiFinder turned on?) Pre Win3 apps work just fine if they followed the memory management rules Microsoft established -- just like Mac apps work fine if they follow Apple's rules. The old applications get all of the advantages of the new user interface (3D buttons, proportional system font, etc) without relinking. The old apps also gain automatic access to the additional memory, including virtual memory in 386 mode. But, since you ask... DOS applications can run under all Windows 3.0 modes (8088, 286, and 386). Windows lets you copy data from a DOS app and paste it into another app. Using a 386 provides the fullest set of features because the applications -- even graphics ones -- run in a resizeable window. However, the issue that was originally discussed here (I think) was the problem that disk icons, the trashcan and files on the desktop do _not_ come to the foreground when the Finder is the active (frontmost) app. I use a Mac (SE 20) frequently at work (more than I use the PC at work -- at home the PC dominates) and this is my second biggest complaint (behind the tiny B&W screen which several thousand dollars can correct). One of the big differences between the way of the Mac and Windows is that in Windows, the only things that live on the desktop are running applications. I would love the Finder to have one big window. The icons for disks and the trashcan, frequently used files, and windows for open and closed folder should appear in this larger window. Of course, then it would operate like the Windows File Manager with a pretty face. :-) > Robert = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu Ken ____________________________________________________________________________ Phone: (215) 895-2698 Kenneth S. Blackney Internet: Ken_Blackney@DUPR.OCS.Drexel.EDU Drexel University Bitnet: BLACKNEY@DUPR.BITNET Computing Services
ke2y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (07/18/90)
In article <3114@gmdzi.UUCP>, strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: > > But even the Multifinder suffers from the original single-application- > design: a switch from one application to another one has to > replace the menu bar on top of the screen, because there is only > one of them. This is more disturbing than MS Windows use of > multiple menu bars and the use of highlighting to show the > active application with the keyboard focus. It has been argued here before (re: Mac vs other GUI) that the Mac's single menu bar is a highly useful feature, since it provides the menus at a constant location (i.e. you don't have to go mouse-hunting; you can just whip the pointer up to the top of the screen and you've hit it). Furthermore, applications that follow Apple's guidelines make even more use of this feature by keeping the Apple, File and Edit menus in the same location (thus easier to 'hit'). > This indicates that the resizing capability alone is not enough > to get applications to share a screen without either confusing > or keeping the user busy. MS Windows tries to tackle this problem > by giving the user the option to run an application in one of three > modes: minimized (i.e. as an icon), normal size (resizeable or not), > and maximized (resized to the maximum size the application allowes), > and a fast method to switch between these three modes. Problem here is that as soon as MultiFinder came out, dozens of third- party developers come out with their own INITs and cdevs to do just that, along with many other things. At present, I can think of no less than FOUR utilities (either cdev/INITs or such) that add a 'ICONIZE' option to a window (or at least shrink it in some way). Why should Apple waste its resources in reinventing the wheel when others have put a lot of their own energy into this? You'll probably argue that some of these things should have been features to begin with. Perhaps that's true, but I can't knock Apple too bad - it's impossible to throw every whiz-bang feature into a new product; someone's bound to think of something that's missing. I'm not arguing Apple's perfect. Not even that they're better or worse than IBM/Atari/Amiga/etc. Just that I can see some reasons for some of the stuff being the way it is. Even with some of the flaming, this is turning out to be an interesting and informative discussion. Let's keep it up... > Wolfgang Strobl > #include <std.disclaimer.hpp> =============================================================================== | John T. Chapman | | | | Witty message under repair... | | ke2y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu | | | ke2y@crnlvax5.bitnet | | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Disclaimer: These opinions are mine. You can't have them! | ===============================================================================
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (07/18/90)
------- In article <BARNETT.90Jul18130957@grymoire.crd.ge.com>, barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) writes... [...] > >I have never had to "hunt" for a mouse with a pop-up menu. >And "whipping" the mouse all the time is much more tiring on my >wrist. I would rather have the menu jump to me, than make me move to >the menu bar. No mouse moving at all. I personally find pop-up (a la Sun) menus confusing. I use computers all day long, so I'm not a novice. How easy do you think pop-up menus would be for the novice/average user? BTW, you can purchase serveral INITs which make the Mac have popup menus. Some might even be freeware. >Apple *knows* that a two-or-three button mouse provides a more efficient >user interface. (An Apple employee told me this.) First, a 2 or 3 button mouse doesn't provice a more efficient interface. Check out the Next. A multi-button mouse is _much_ harder to learn to use. Again, I can speak from personal experience. But it's probably a matter of personal preference. Second, what does the above statement actually mean? Who is "Apple"? In all liklihood there are several different camps at Apple wrt mouse buttons, and your chum probably belonged to the multi-button group. > >The real problem is: > > Apple cannot radically change/improve the user interface > because the new interface will not be Mac-like. > >Someday, people will react to the Mac UI the same way Mac users react >to MS-DOS. >-- Unlikely, since the Mac interface will change, albeit slowly. If you're so concerned with the Mac's interface, why don't you drop some email to Tog/Human Interface Group? They do listen. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) (07/19/90)
In article <4706.26a43afd@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> ke2y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: >It has been argued here before (re: Mac vs other GUI) that the Mac's >single menu bar is a highly useful feature, since it provides the menus >at a constant location (i.e. you don't have to go mouse-hunting; you can just >whip the pointer up to the top of the screen and you've hit it). But when you have bigger screens, or perhaps three monitors, move the mouse to one spot is a real pain, expecially when you are at one end, and the menu bar is at the other. I have never had to "hunt" for a mouse with a pop-up menu. And "whipping" the mouse all the time is much more tiring on my wrist. I would rather have the menu jump to me, than make me move to the menu bar. No mouse moving at all. Apple *knows* that a two-or-three button mouse provides a more efficient user interface. (An Apple employee told me this.) The real problem is: Apple cannot radically change/improve the user interface because the new interface will not be Mac-like. Someday, people will react to the Mac UI the same way Mac users react to MS-DOS. -- Bruce G. Barnett barnett@crd.ge.com uunet!crdgw1!barnett
minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) (07/19/90)
by ke2y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu: | Why should Apple waste its resources in reinventing the wheel when others |have put a lot of their own energy into this? | You'll probably argue that some of these things should have been features |to begin with. Perhaps that's true, but I can't knock Apple too bad - it's |impossible to throw every whiz-bang feature into a new product; someone's |bound to think of something that's missing. Although this came out of a discussion (?) of iconizing windows, a feature I don't see as necessary, the above comment about reinventing the wheel is indeed important. IMHO, nifty little INIT's, cdev's, hacks etc. are great, but they often cause difficult to find problems and bad interactions. System software, on the other hand, is a constant that people can all work with and around. Would we have 32bit QD (which others had implemented before Apple) if Apple didn't reinvent the wheel? How about putting DA's into a folder rather than installing them in the sys file? (Can do it with Suitcase/Juggler.) How about virtual memory? Sure some of these are sys 7, but the point is still valid. How about TrueType? (Well, ATM is first to market, but would there be ATM without TrueType?) I'd rather have important things done well by Apple rather then relying on third parties, esp. shareware, which may not be as stable and supported. Some cry about creeping features, but that's BS. Let's talk about rasing the standards that applications can depend on. -- | _ /| | Robert Minich |Q: Why is the food so lousy, and | \'o.O' | Oklahoma State University |the service so bad? Time traveler: | =(___)= | minich@d.cs.okstate.edu |A:The waiters know in advance what | U | - Bill sez "Ackphtth" |kind of tip they'll be getting.
steve@uswmrg2.UUCP (Steve Martin) (07/19/90)
In article <BARNETT.90Jul18130957@grymoire.crd.ge.com> barnett@crdgw1.ge.com writes: >Apple *knows* that a two-or-three button mouse provides a more efficient >user interface. (An Apple employee told me this.) > >The real problem is: > > Apple cannot radically change/improve the user interface > because the new interface will not be Mac-like. Whoa! Maybe one employee of Apple believes this, but I doubt that Apple would make the statement quite so boldly. I have used HP's two button mouse, Sun's three button mouse and Apple's one button mouse. The only time that I thought that the one button mouse was less efficient was after several bottles of beer. I shouldn't have driven a car at that point either! I was very proficient with the Sun mouse, I only had to check the manual for correct usage twice a day. I suppose that a 300 key keyboard would be more efficient, by the same line of reasoning. -- Steve Martin | Nothing I say can be held against U S West Marketing Resources Group | Me or my employer! (...uswat.uswest.com!uswmrg2!steve)
grobbins@nssdcs.gsfc.nasa.gov (Grobbins (IDM)) (07/19/90)
In article <1990Jul18.173018.18971@midway.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >In article <BARNETT.90Jul18130957@grymoire.crd.ge.com> barnett@grymoire writes: >>Apple *knows* that a two-or-three button mouse provides a more efficient >>user interface. (An Apple employee told me this.) >First, a 2 or 3 button mouse doesn't provice a more efficient interface. Check >out the Next. A multi-button mouse is _much_ harder to learn to use. Right. The theory at Apple was something like this: to be a natural pointing device, the mouse should never be something you have to think about or look down at. WIth 2 and 3 button mice, even experienced users frequently pause to think about which button they're pressing. After noting how multiple buttons made mice more complex and less natural, Apple worked to have the Lisa use a one-button mouse. You can always argue that three buttons are necessary or better, but Apple's original rationale still holds. Grobbins grobbins@nssdcs.gsfc.nasa.gov
lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (07/19/90)
In article <BARNETT.90Jul18130957@grymoire.crd.ge.com> barnett@crdgw1.ge.com writes: > >But when you have bigger screens, or perhaps three monitors, move the >mouse to one spot is a real pain, expecially when you are at one end, >and the menu bar is at the other. > >I have never had to "hunt" for a mouse with a pop-up menu. Except that in the latest CHI Proceedings some people did a study that showed that the menu bar at the top of the screen was faster than using a popup menu. The reason being that the top of the screen acts as a barrier, which increases the effective size of the target. (That doesn't mean one couldn't design a popup menu interface tha twas better, but a simple popup menu won't do it.) >Apple *knows* that a two-or-three button mouse provides a more efficient >user interface. (An Apple employee told me this.) Then you're talking to the wrong employees. :-) What is efficiency? Certainly 2 buttons allow you to put twice as many functions under your finger than one; and 10 buttons give you 10 times as many. But the questions is whether a user can deal with 2 or10 mouse buttons. >Someday, people will react to the Mac UI the same way Mac users react >to MS-DOS. I'm sure this will happen. If it doesn't, then something is wrong with the computer industry. -- Larry Rosenstein, Object Specialist Apple Computer, Inc. 20525 Mariani Ave, MS 46-B Cupertino, CA 95014 AppleLink:Rosenstein1 domain:lsr@Apple.COM UUCP:{sun,voder,nsc,decwrl}!apple!lsr
barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) (07/19/90)
In article <1990Jul18.173018.18971@midway.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >I personally find pop-up (a la Sun) menus confusing. I use computers all day >long, so I'm not a novice. How easy do you think pop-up menus would be for the >novice/average user? I never said that pop-up menus would replace the pull-down menus. They could augment the Mac interface and be a superset of the current UI. > >First, a 2 or 3 button mouse doesn't provice a more efficient interface. Check >out the Next. A multi-button mouse is _much_ harder to learn to use. I agree that some interfaces that use multiple mouse buttons are bad. That doesn't mean that they are all bad, or hard to learn. People keep talking about users who get confused with the functionality of the different mouse buttons. Surely people have considered ways to solve this problem. I can think of a dozen physical ways off the top of my head. >>The real problem is: >> >> Apple cannot radically change/improve the user interface >> because the new interface will not be Mac-like. >> >>Someday, people will react to the Mac UI the same way Mac users react >>to MS-DOS. >>-- > >Unlikely, since the Mac interface will change, albeit slowly. If you're so >concerned with the Mac's interface, why don't you drop some email to Tog/Human >Interface Group? They do listen. I will. What is the address? -- Bruce G. Barnett barnett@crd.ge.com uunet!crdgw1!barnett
brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) (07/19/90)
I will preface my comments with some philosophy. The aim of the Macintosh interface is to provide a consistent user interface across all applications. The perceived benefit of this is that if you know the Mac interface and you know what you want the program to do and it can do it then you will be able to get it to do it with a minimum of fuss. No need to read 200 page tutorials and manuals, no need to bug the system administrator or the software vendor. This is what people mean when they say an application has a good mac-interface. The purpose is not to have the very best interface for each individual application, or even application area. To justify an addition to the Mac interface it has to be useful for every application. If we want to discuss the pros and cons of this philosophy then fine, but let's make it explicit. Otherwise what is the point? barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) writes: >In article <1990Jul18.173018.18971@midway.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >>I personally find pop-up (a la Sun) menus confusing. I use computers all day >>long, so I'm not a novice. How easy do you think pop-up menus would be for the >>novice/average user? >I never said that pop-up menus would replace the pull-down menus. >They could augment the Mac interface and be a superset of the current >UI. There sometimes but not others? Goodbye! >> >>First, a 2 or 3 button mouse doesn't provice a more efficient interface. Check >>out the Next. A multi-button mouse is _much_ harder to learn to use. >I agree that some interfaces that use multiple mouse buttons are bad. >That doesn't mean that they are all bad, or hard to learn. >People keep talking about users who get confused with the >functionality of the different mouse buttons. >Surely people have considered ways to solve this problem. >I can think of a dozen physical ways off the top of my head. Okay. Give us 2/3 functions which are always useful, no matter what is being pointing at. -- Brendan Mahony | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz | Department of Computer Science | University of Queensland | Australia |
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (07/20/90)
------ In article <BARNETT.90Jul18231752@grymoire.crd.ge.com>, barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) writes... >In article <1990Jul18.173018.18971@midway.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: [...] >>Unlikely, since the Mac interface will change, albeit slowly. If you're so >>concerned with the Mac's interface, why don't you drop some email to Tog/Human >>Interface Group? They do listen. > >I will. >What is the address? You can contact Macintosh Human Interface Group at the following electronic addresses: Applelink: MacInterface Internet: MacInterface@AppleLink.Apple.com Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
daveo@Apple.COM (David M. O'Rourke) (07/20/90)
barnett@crdgw1.ge.com writes: >Apple *knows* that a two-or-three button mouse provides a more efficient >user interface. (An Apple employee told me this.) Please be careful about what you say "Apple Knows". 1) Apple has over 10,00 people and we all don't always agree. :-) 2) People are allowed to have their own opinions. 3) I've yet to see it mentioned in the user interface guidelines. 4) the multi-button mouse debate depends on which UI "expert" you talk to. 5) Have you ever witnessed a novice computer user fighting a multi-button mouse, and what make it really fun is when there no "standard" way of knowing what a button combination will do in a given app. Apple knows nothing, groups of people at Apple express opinions and some of the better opinions we work into products. -- daveo@apple.com David M. O'Rourke _______________________________________________________________________________ I do not speak for Apple in *ANY* official capacity.
barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) (07/21/90)
In article <43180@apple.Apple.COM> daveo@Apple.COM (David M. O'Rourke) writes: > barnett@crdgw1.ge.com writes: > >Apple *knows* that a two-or-three button mouse provides a more efficient > >user interface. (An Apple employee told me this.) > Please be careful about what you say "Apple Knows". Absolutely right. I appologize for being sloppy with my words. Note I didn't say better, friendly, easier, or compatible. one of the main points I was trying to make was that there are certain changes Apple will not make to the Mac UI. Example: Suppose someone "proves" another rival window system is "better". (Of course another expert could "prove" the Mac UI is better.) But even so, would Apple change their UI? Of course not. Their UI would cease to be unique. They would have to fire all their lawyers! :-) -- Bruce G. Barnett barnett@crd.ge.com uunet!crdgw1!barnett