🚀 go-pugleaf

> One more thought on this issue. This has largely been argued as a philosophy/
> personal preference issue. Of course, human interface is a science (sort of).
> It should in principle be possible to program some of the alternatives, and
> set people to using them for a few months. The difficult part of course is an
> objective measure... I am not convinced by any of this that warping the
> cursor is better than warping a tool palette, but if someone is prepared to
> program both, I'm prepared to try both.
> 
> Philip Machanick
> philip@pescadero.stanford.edu

This is the most sensible response yet.  Rather than guessing, do what
Apple did--Try it!  Scientifically, as an experiment.  Do what the
experimental data tell you, rather than guessing or saying "This is Sooo
neat!  Let's do it."

'Course that's expensive.  So are Macs.  Many people are willing to pay
a premium for some pretty ho-hum H/W (well, at least until some of the
later Mac IIs came out), with a pretty consistent and usable User
Interface.  Wonder if there's a correlation?

Scott "don't Corrupt the Interface by Jumping to Conclusions" Bayes
Hewlett-Packard Company

The opinions expressed above are my own opinions and are not an official
statement of Hewlett-Packard Company.