🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1759@ssc-vax.UUCP> benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) writes:
>In article <14485@oddjob.UChicago.EDU>, mcb@oddjob.UChicago.EDU (Not prince Hamlet . . .) writes:
>>    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. 

I don't think that this an inconsistency in the way the *mouse button*
is used.  In either case, the mouse button was used to select an item
in one place, move it to another place, and drop it.  The fact that
the Finder, in this example, interprets this action so as to not make
a redundant copy of the file when the destination is the same as the
source is really independent of the human interface technique of
clicking and dragging.  The Mac interface is always consistent in that
clicking on an item with the button selects it, and dragging it moves
the selection.  How the application decides to interpret the
consequences of such an action is up to that application.

(A minor quibble: note that the Finder is not technically part of the
operating system.  It's just an application which allows the user to
perform file operations and launch programs.  One needn't use the
Finder at all; there are many alternatives available.)

I think what the original poster meant by "inconsistent use of mouse
buttons" is when different applications use the same buttons to perform
completely different user interface actions; for example, some
applications use the right button for menus, some use the middle
button; some use the middle button to extend selections, some don't.

>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. 

Balderdash.  There IS a standard, which is extremely well-documented,
and which 90% of Mac applications follow very closely.  I don't know
what you mean by "enforced".  Do you mean that Apple should sue
software vendors that don't follow the guidelines or something?  I
think Apple encourages developers to follow the guidelines as
vigorously as they can within practical bounds.

Also, putting up Interleaf as an example of inconsistency in the
Macintosh interface is extremely misleading.  Interleaf is NOT a
Macintosh application.  It's a Sun application that was ported to the
Mac, complete with it's brain-damaged abomination of a user interface.
(brain-damaged even by Sun application standards).

>FYI. Sun also has a chapter in their SunView Programmer's book on Sun user
>interface design.

Yeah.  Obviously the people at Interleaf haven't read it. :-)

But seriously, this little five-page appendix is not nearly as
detailed and extensive as the user interface guidelines Apple has
published for its developers.  And it concentrates on very specific
pieces of an interface such as buttons and frame headers; it's doesn't
say much about what the overall user interface of a SunView
application should be like.  And it's vague in spots (for example,
even Sun isn't sure exactly what should be done with the middle mouse
button).

Just look at the results.  Mac user interfaces are extremely
consistent across applications.  One can start a brand new Mac
application and, in most cases, start using it productively without
even cracking the manual.  This is because almost all Mac applications
look nearly identical when they start up - an empty document window
called "Untitled", and a menu bar containing the Apple menu with an
"About <application>..." option followed by a list of available desk
accessories, a File menu which always has "New", "Open", "Close",
"Save", "Save As...", "Revert", "Page Setup", "Print" and "Quit", an
Edit menu which always has "Undo", "Cut", "Copy", "Paste", "Clear" and
"Select All", and often a "Font" menu containing a list of available
fonts, plus whatever other application-specific menus are required.
There is not even close to this level of consistency across Sun
applications.

Note that I'm not saying that all SunView user interfaces are bad.
Some are very good (example: FrameMaker.  Wonder where they got their
inspiration? :-).  But by and large, they just aren't consistent
with each other.

----
Mark Vita                              ARPA: vita@ge-crd.ARPA
General Electric Company               UUCP: vita@desdemona.steinmetz.UUCP
Corporate R & D                              vita@desdemona.steinmetz.ge.com
Schenectady, NY                              desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP