🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <89122504042939@masnet.uucp> rg@uunet!unhd@canremote.uucp (rg@uunet!unhd) writes:
>From: rg@uunet!unhd (Roger Gonzalez )
>Subj: Xerox sues Apple!!! (GUI Design)
>Orga: Marine Systems Engineering Lab
>
>Totally aside from the Mac/IBM debating, I'm curious about how people
>feel about GUI designs in general (you too, Amigoids).

Thank you. I generally avoid posting on alternate computer newsgroups, because
of the danger of being flamed to a crisp! (It happened once, and I have the
3rd degree burns to show for it! :-)

I have used many computers, including IBM, Mac, and Atari ST. Needless to
say, after comparing them all, I am a Amiga Devotee to the nth degree! :-)
But there are valid reasons, as you will soon see.

>Some GUI's work well.  But, whenever I have to use one that is poorly
>designed, I start to miss VM/CMS :-)

My speciality is GUI's. I'm currently in the process of writing complicated
software for the Amiga that makes heavy reliance on GUI.

>Some comments:
>
>Don't design the GUI so that the user needs pixel-precision to do
>things! After my morning gallon of coffee, the last thing I want to
>do is line things up to pixels.  I like objects that recognize
>themselves as wholes, and especially auto-caddish features like
>"attach to endpoint".

Agreed. The entire icon should be a selection area.

>In one of my user interface design books (I'll look up the specifics
>if anyone is curious) numerous studies were cited in which menu
>driven and iconic interfaces were proven to be effective methods for
>(a) novices and (b) small command sets, especially hierarchical
>command sets.  They were shown to be more of an annoyance in large
>command sets and with experienced users.  

That depends on the application, and the design. Generally, a small
command set is desirable, but not always possible. Also, if the application
is a Word Processer, there should be many keyboard equivalents. If its a 
3-D modeler, keyboard equivalents would also be desirable, but more so 
commands should be "grouped" (e.g. in requesters, or 'dialog boxes' in the Mac
world) in such a way to make it *appear* that there is
only a small (or modest) command set, even if there are many. It's not
easy to do this, since there must also be a self-consistent 'flow', or 
'gestalt' to the overall design. This is art, folks! 

>On a Mac, if I create a bunch of files (say 30) that all contain the
>string "foobar" in their name, can I delete "??foobar.*" without
>pointing at every blinking file?  I've never figured out how.

The great thing that I love the most about the Amiga is that it gives
you a CHOICE- you can pop up as many CLI's as you like (and they all
multitask!) -OR- you can use the iconic interface (Workbench). I find
myself using them both simultaneously, for certain tasks are better suited
to one or the other. Obviously, IBM is a kludge from the start (and IBM
wanted it that way, for fear of losing out on their mainframes!)

>The Mac methodology seems to be "I am an object, and am associated
>with the tool that created me.  I won't let you use the wrong tool,
>so don't worry." PC's look at it notably differently.  They say
>"There are objects, and there  are tools.  Use any tool you want on
>any object.  It's up to you to figure out the right tool for the
>job."  I prefer the latter schema, because it is inherently more
>powerful.  More dangerous, but more powerful.  In addition, I think
>its closer to the way that people think.  I may be wrong about this
>whole section, but whenever I've tried to look at or otherwise hack
>into things at a low level, things complained noisily because I
>wasn't using the proper applications.

Here again, the Amiga gives you a choice. You can even change the 
Object-Tool association with ease. Also, the assoication is looser
on the Amiga than it is on the Mac. And with multiple-selection,
you can override the association. For instance, what if I wanted to
use word-processor B on files created by word-processer A. All I have
to do is 'shift-click' word-processor B and the files, then doubble-click
at the end. Viola! The wp comes up with all my selected files!

>Comments welcome (especially from Amigoids, since I've never used
>one). -Roger

You should really seek out your local Amiga dealer and check out
the Amiga.

The Mac is interesting from the standpoint of some of the software it has-
but the OS is seriously lacking. Lots of great tools, sure- but in a poor,
non-multasking environment. (No, cooperative multitasking is not TRUE
multitasking, as all us software engineers know [watch me get flamed on
that one!]) I feel that if Apple were to totally RE-WRITE the OS from scratch,
they can have a respectable system. Of course, that would mean compatibility
problems(!). Since I wrote a multitasking system 10 years 
ago (when I was 19!!!), I fail to see why Mac and IBM (especially IBM!!!!!!!
Shameless)  could not have produced MUCH better systems. And before 
anyone starts griping about memory limitations
of the early 80's, I did my system on Data General's MicroNova hardware, which
had only 64K of total addressability back then. The 4X was especially fun to
work on, too. It had something like 256K of memory, with a MMU to map it in
<=64K chunks.

No flames, please- only constructive criticism. But I'll still keep my CO2
canister handy (or my laser :-).

And now, to disapear back into obscurity :-)

>UUCP:   ..!uunet!unhd!rg      | USPS: Marine Systems Engineering
>Laboratory BITNET: r_gonzalez at unhh    |       University of New
>Hampshire PHONE:  (603) 862-4600        |       242 SERB
>FAX:    (603) 862-4399        |       Durham, NH  03824-3525

	-Mitchell
	 mitchell@cbmvax.UUCP
	 "An Apple a day helps keep the Doctor Employed." - Atreides