🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <66512@ti-csl.CSNET], holland@m2.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander) writes:
] In article <4510@xenna.Encore.COM> bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) writes:
] >
] >The issue is not which is more "intuitive" (whatever that means) but
] 
] The issue most certainly is which is more intuitive.  At least that is the
] issue of the article to which I responded.  Since you chose to leave out the
] quote, I'll include it here to refresh your memory.
] 
] >>My son is in high school.  He also uses vi and nroff without difficulty,
] >>so please spare me the flames about difficult to learn and use.  He's been
] >>using vi since the 5th grade.
] >>
] >>I never found the Mac (or other graphical and mouse) interfaces particularly
] >>intuitive.  The command-line interface doesn't leave you guessing which button
] >to push how many times once you learn to finish commands with a carriage return
] 
] Also, since you are wondering what intuitive means, I'll include an excerpt
] from Webster's, "directly apprehended" and my own definition in this context,
] "not requiring a manual or formal training".

I'm perfectly happy to accept that definition.  Now please tell me what is
intuitive about selecting some particular button to push on a mouse and how
many times (*and* how fast) to press it?  The Mac use of the "double-click"
is *not*--I repeat *not*--intuitively obvious.  And yet--you can not use
a mac (at least as a novice) without knowing that.  Therefore--without
"manual or formal training" the Mac is unusable--at least by me.  We can
discuss what fraction of the populace shares that idiosyncracy, but until
the fraction becomes very small *some* form of help will be needed for *any*
system.

] >once learned. Or is taking a little time to learn how to use a tool a
] >dirty word?
] 
] No, it's not a dirty word.  It's just not for everyone.  Not everyone needs
] the power.  And there are people who simply don't have the time or interest
] to learn and would gladly give up some power for ease of use.  The general
] issue was "Why a metaphor?".  I'm simply making the point that a metaphor
] makes the system more intuitive.  The learning time is significantly reduced,
] an important issue for those who value their time!

This probably explains why my boss's-boss uses a Mac--and prints his e-mail
before he tries to read it.  On a more serious note, I have seen more 
people frustrated because a system or program lacked features they discovered
they needed than by those who were faced with more power than they can handle.
It is far easier to create a simplified version of a complex system than
create a complex version of a simple program.  I would suggest that the
solution is to add "novice" modes for novices and let them discover the
power that lies behind this facade.

] >There seems to be a fascination in this field with catering to some
] >mythical person with a two-digit IQ, total fear of computers, and not
] >enough technical sense to operate a push-button phone.
] >
] >My suggestion is that when you find such people don't hire them as
] >they will probably be poorly suited to the rest of the skilled white
] >collar job they are being considered for, let them find more
] >appropriate work (for both of you.)
] 
] I certainly wouldn't want you in the personnel deptartment in my company.
] Would you place less of a value on the president of a multi-million dollar
] company simply because he won't take the time to learn UNIX?  Besides, who
] says computers are only for white collar workers.  Have you heard of factory
] automation, to name just one counter-example?

In the past, it would be quite proper to hire the president of a company
in the face of a lack of technical knowledge.  This is no longer true.
The president of the company had better be able assess the value and 
accuracy of such minor things a spreadsheet outputs.  If he cannot
understand the powers and limits of computers he will not be able to
understand the economy your company is operating in.  This could
*seriously* impact *your* future.  Learn unix--not needed, per se--but
he'd better know some system or other--at least well enough to get his
mail.

    --Hal

=========================================================================
  Hal Heydt                             |    "Hafnium plus Holmium is
  Analyst, Pacific*Bell                 |     one-point-five, I think."
  415-645-7708                          |       --Dr. Jane Robinson
  {att,bellcore,sun,ames,pyramid}!pacbell!pbhya!whh