david@lta.com (David B. Lewis) (04/03/91)
> ... just isn't as well thought out as Open Look.
I swore that I wouldn't get involved in this near-pointless Unix Today stuff,
but this comment has come up before, and I feel that this holier-than-thou
attitude is inappropriate, given the lack of documentation for the reaons
behind Open Look design decisions. So far as I can judge from the fact that
there exist no user studies, "well thought out" means only "took a long time
from specification to toolkit".ittai@shemesh.GBA.NYU.EDU (Ittai Hershman) (04/03/91)
In article <9104022240.AA07214@lta.com>, david@lta.com (David B. Lewis) writes: > > ... just isn't as well thought out as Open Look. > > I swore that I wouldn't get involved in this near-pointless Unix Today stuff, > but this comment has come up before, and I feel that this holier-than-thou > attitude is inappropriate, given the lack of documentation for the reaons > behind Open Look design decisions. So far as I can judge from the fact that > there exist no user studies, "well thought out" means only "took a long time > from specification to toolkit". Some guy from AT&T posted a note a while back stating that he had such a study which "proved" that Open Look was better from an HCI point of view than Motif. I asked for a copy of the study and after a few mail messages back and forth (over a month or so) it never materialized. Incidentally, I suspect that a reasonable HCI case can be made for either Motif or Open Look. I happen to prefer Motif, but I would not say that Open Look is poorly designed. From my point of view, its really quite simple: in every battle there is a winner and a loser. Motif and Open Look were both valiant soldiers thrust into battle with the best of intentions. Motif won and Open Look lost. Motif learned a thing or two from the battle and it will incorporate that experience into itself (e.g. tear-off menus a.k.a. pushpins). There are more important battles too be fought; the time has come to move on. -Ittai