🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1739@ssc-vax.UUCP> benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) writes:
|In article <14458@oddjob.UChicago.EDU>, mcb@oddjob.UChicago.EDU (Still amused by setenv NAME) writes:
|> alternative to the standard interface.  The reason the Macintosh has a 
|> one-button mouse (in case anyone doesn't know) is that the average user 
|> works > faster with a single button.  Apple tested this fairly 
|> extensively, and it turns out that most people get confused when there's 
|> more than one button on the mouse.
|I take it you believe them?

I don't believe faster, I would believe with less confusion for the naive
and casual user.  Remember, the Mac's user interface was (and still is pimarily)
aimed at the casual user.  Everything the user can do appears as an icon
or in a menu located in an obvious place.  There are tools for power users,
but one of the primary rules in designing a Mac application is make sure
all operations are visibile (or in a menu that is visible).

|When I go back to the Mac the one-button mouse seems completely awkward
|and lacking flexibility.  Obviously there must be a point of no return -
|i wouldn't want to work on a 92-button mouse :-)

Actually, I have a 106 button mouse on my Mac :-).  Or however many keys
are on that extended keyboard.  With QuickKeys, you can redefine any
key to be any sequence of keys, menu selection or mouse button-presses/drags
that you want.  Why limit yourself to three buttons when you have the whole
keyboard for defining shortcuts?

Jerry Whitnell				Been through Hell?
Communication Solutions, Inc.		What did you bring back for me?
						- A. Brilliant