🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3765@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>I think windows are more generally useful. I have abandoned the icon interface
>to my Amiga and written a text/window interface that provides much the same 
>functionality.
>
>BUT, windows != icons.

I tend to agree with Peter that windows != icons, but in some ways, an iconic
interface tends to be easier to use than text.  However, you need to spend
time designing the icons -- not an easy job for the average programmer.  In
fact, a lot of times, I call on the expertise of a graphics artist, even
though I spent 2 years as a graphics designer while installing a computer
system in an advertising shop, oh, about 9 years ago.  Icons need to represent
what would be difficult to represent in a written language.  A good example of
this would be an icon for "winding road ahead," or the Mac icon for a notice
alert (which includes an "!").
I also spent some time on an Amiga, and turned off the icon interface.  Not
because it was poorly implemented (it was!), but because the resolution of
the screen was so poor that the icons often couldn't be distinguished.  The
same is true of Gem on anything less than a Hercules or EGA display on the
IBM PC.
     -GLA


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Glenn L. Austin             | The nice thing about standards is that      | 
| Apple Computer, Inc.        | there are so many of them to choose from.   | 
| Internet: austing@apple.com |       -Andrew S. Tanenbaum                  |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| All opinions stated above are mine -- who else would want them?           |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------