🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8092@aw.sei.cmu.edu> weh@bu.sei.cmu.edu.UUCP (Bill Hefley) writes:
>In article <4455@Portia.Stanford.EDU> rdsesq@Jessica.stanford.edu 
>(Rob Snevely) writes:
>>The issue is not ease of use, the issue is how effectively a person can
>>use a program as a tool to make his/her life or job better or easier.
>
>Agreed!

I think the issue is both ease-of-use *and* the effective use of programs
as tools. The point of using a metaphor is to relate what the person is
doing to something {sh,h}e has done before, right? So let's think about the
example that has been given of early automobiles with tillers - the current
steering mechanism has nothing to do with tillers. This would seem to prove
that tillers are an inherently degenerate way of steering cars; in other words,
the metaphor that people were familiar with, (steering a boat), had so little
to do with the evolving technology of automobiles that it was discarded in
favor of something new. (Or maybe not many people were familiar with steering
a boat.)

I may be stretching the analogy a bit, but I think it's valid - maybe the
best thing we could do for computer-human interfaces would be to discard
the use and pursuit of interaction metaphors and come up with new methods
of interaction that are more appropriate for people using computers. Much
the same as a previous poster, I don't think my use of a graphical interface 
relates in any useful way to the manner in which I use my desk.  Most of my 
experience with graphical interfaces is with SunView. Is SunView an intuitive 
interface? Maybe, depending on your experience level. Is it useful? Definitely!
By using the accelerators available for mouse and buffer actions, I can get a 
lot done. My question is: Since the interface is so useful and effective, why 
can't it also be intuitive? Is it because it's screen-oriented? Mouse-based? 
I don't know, but I'd like to start trying to find out. 

To give full credit, part of this line of thought was triggered when I was
going through some old papers and found "Analogy Considered Harmful" by
Frank Halasz (Stanford U.) and Thomas Moran (Xerox PARC). (CACM 1981? pp383-
386) The paper addresses the issue of new users forming analogies, and suggests
that the best way to teach about computer systems is not by analogy, but by the
use of an abstract conceptual model. The paper, along with the current 'Why 
Any Metaphor?' discussion thread, started to catalyze some things for me. 

I'd be interested in hearing (reading) other people's ideas on this. It seems 
that we ought to be able to come up with something that's more appropriate to 
the technology available.

----------
Steve Boyle (508) 271-7030
sboyle@mbunix.mitre.org
The MITRE Corporation, MS B-020
Burlington Road
Bedford, MA. 01730