🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Feb12.115721.2784@alex.com> bryan@alex.com writes:
>> Please note that the IEEE efforts I quoted are directed at the *API*,
>> not the look and feel.

In article <id.7KNX.QI6@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
writes:
>That's good. I've long wondered why people get so hung up on relatively
>minor differences of look and feel of the various style guides, instead
>of working on a common API that *hides* irrelevant details like that.

Well, it's because there are two ends to the interface.  Standardizing the
API helps programmers write applications; standardizing the look and feel
helps users quickly use programs effectively.  Because of the way people
function, the latter standardization doesn't have to be anywhere near as
rigid, but it certainly assists people if just about any application they
use follows certain basic conventions for common functions.  This is one
of the nicer features of the Macintosh, something even people who dislike
the Mac can learn from.

Relatively minor differences of look and feel don't matter that much
(though users may find them distracting -- they have to sort out
significant vs nonsignificant differences, e.g. does it mean something
that a particular bit of information is displayed a bit differently?).  On
the other hand, if a user is used to left-click selecting an object, and
someone writes a program that makes left-click delete an object, I'm afraid
"RTFM" isn't going to serve as a very good defense.



--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu