🚀 go-pugleaf

>I used MS Word 3.0 today, and found much to my disgust. . .
>
>Isn't the phrase "Consistent User Interface" in their dictionary???
>
>Harrumph.

Of course the phrase "Consistent User Interface" is in their dictionary! They
are trying very hard to be consistent with the IBM PC! Remember WordStar? Now,
why do you think that they have so many key-click "equivalents," some that are
"equivalent" to features addressable in no other way?

From day one, Microsoft has "freely" interpreted the Mac's user interface
guidelines in their own way. Unfortunately their commercial success has made
them insufferable on many fronts, this being only one. Try to get the details
of their DCA format implementation on Word 3.0, for example.

The trouble is, they'll keep doing it as long as they are commercially suc-
cessful. And that means, folks, that WE are the ones making them too big for
their britches. Well, IBM isn't helping, either, but that's to be expected,
isn't it? Don't buy from them if you don't like them. As for me, I'm going off
to investigate WriteNow!

As a (perhaps negatively) mitigating factor, Human Interface design is a VERY
tricky business, and is made worse by the fact that EVERYONE, and I mean EVERY-
ONE, considers themselves an expert in how their users should approach their
product. The less they have studied the nuances of the discipline, the more
convinced people are of their expertise in this area. It would seem to me that
MicroSoft's vaunted expert who designed the Word 3.0 should probably have had
a bit less self-assurance and a bit more information on what a Mac is. It's too
bad he got between the users and the truly wonderful capabilities that Word 3.0
has!

-- 
-Brian Diehm     (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply)
Tektronix, Inc.
briand@tekig4.TEK.COM   or  {decvax,cae780,uw-beaver}!tektronix!tekig4!briand