🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <14485@oddjob.UChicago.EDU>, mcb@oddjob.UChicago.EDU (Not prince Hamlet . . .) writes:
> The mouse should be as simple as possible: a tool for pointing and doing
> something.  What I would like to see instead of more buttons would be a row of

*it* should be as simple as possible for *NOVICES*!  again why laden 
experienced users (users that 10 minutes before where novices :->) with
weak tools.

> "modifier buttons" along the bottom edge of the keyboard.  These would be used
oh no!  The linking with of keys and mouse is not 1) egonomic and 2) a weak
replacement for mouse buttons.  Why would anyone add keyboard keys rather than
have the simpler and more logical multiple mouse buttons.  I think users would
be even MORE confused by having additional keys that ACT on the mouse...i can
understand a mouse/keyboard RESET button (which would reset the keyboard and
mouse configuration to it's default configuration). Tho' i see problems with
this too...

>    3) The use of the buttons should be consistent across applications.  This
> is something that Sun and IBM are apparently incapable of understanding- the
Apple also doesn't understand this consistency either, note that 
when you click  (select) a file from you Mac hard disk window and drag it to 
your floppy window you do a COPY.  When you try to to the same only instead 
make the destination directory a hard disk directory ... you MOVE.  Note this
is an operating system inconsistency...it makes sense but is inconsistent. 
Second Apple has a good standard but is not consistent across appliations
(even MacWrite and MacPaint as mentioned by the previous poster).
Also look at Interleaf on the Mac.  Their is no enforced standard. 
FYI. Sun also has a chapter in their SunView Programmer's book on Sun user
interface design.