🚀 go-pugleaf

I don't think Jim Kateley's posting addressed my main points, namely:
(1)     The time & confusion saved by one button mice is insignificant
(2)	Double clicking generates as much confusion as two buttons
(3)	The time it takes to get used to multiple buttons is insignificant

As I understand it, Jim Kateley is saying:
(1)	Multiple button mice require conscious thought to use
(2)	One button mice take advantage of skills we learn in everyday
	life, while multiple button mice force us to learn new ones.

These are actually the same point, since only tasks that are
unfamiliar require direct attention; the more we do something, the
more natural it becomes.  This is called learning.

>		    I did not learn how to move one finger
>over a small space with accuracy, or two decide between two fingers quickly.

Is there anyone out there who can touch type?  Anyone know how to play
the piano?  Or the clarinet?  Granted, these are not "everyday"
skills, and they take considerable time to learn.  But (a) lots of
people learn them anyway, and (b) a typewriter has around fifty keys,
a piano has eighty-eight.  A mouse has at worst three.  If a user
can't deal with that kind of mouse, how can he deal with the keyboard?

PHILOSOPHY FLAME ON

A computer is not a toaster, and if you try to give it the
user-interface of a toaster you will get the functionality of a
toaster.  A computer is a creative tool, with far more power and
potential than a piano.  It is unreasonable to expect access to this
kind of power without ANY learning curve.  Windowing systems in
general are a wonderful idea, but one-button mice are a ridiculous
extreme, the farthest end of the diminishing returns curve.

PHILOSOPHY FLAME OFF

Apologies for going off on a tangent, but I have a lot of problems
with Apple's Philosophy of Computers.  If anyone wants to have a big
argument about it, I welcome your Email.

Adam			chekmate@athena.mit.edu

"Oh, look, we're not even having an argument!"  "Yes we are."  "No we
aren't, this is just contradiction!"  "No it isn't."
		-- Monty Python