🚀 go-pugleaf

     In article <850@mtfmi.att.com> mel@mtfmi.att.com (M.HAAS) writes:
     Let's take one step back and see if there is a metaphor or analogy to
     what we are trying to do ...:

I believe that Mel Haas has asked a critical question that should be
re-examined.  There is much blind faith in the use of metaphor and
"consistent mental model" (I know, some of propogated by me), but
examination of actual systems and a wide variety of tasks doesn't seem
to show much consistent use in actual practice.

The Apple (Xerox Star?) desktop metaphor isn't realy one of a desktop.
If anything, it is of spatial locations, containers, and movements.
Double clicking to "launch" applications and cutting, pasting,
copying, and undoing are all invaluable, but don't fit the same
metaphor.   Moving the disk image into the trash can to ejectthe disk
is a violation that bothers many people at first usage, but seems
perfectly natural after just one or two uses.   The trash can example
is one that bothers me a lot (intellectually) because it illustates a
real violation of principle that causes no problems in practice.
(Some try to save it by redefining ejection of a diskette as a kind of
"throwing away" but I think this is a feeble save.)

I suspect that metaphors are useful in keeping consistency.  But
now Jonathan Grudin is about to present a paper in CHI 89 arguing about
the foolishness of consistency: systems are often improved by
violations.  Even the Lisa/Macintosh deliberately violated consistency
principles when user testing showed it was better to do so.

(One of my favorite examples comes from t he old Tenex operating
system (for the DEC PDP-10 and then 20) which kept multiple versions
of files around, file operation commands always operated on the latest
version: move, copy, rename, print, mail, edit.  One command, however,
was incosnistsent: delete got rid of the oldest, not the latest
version (thank goodness). So much for consistency.

Yes, early technoogy almost always copies older ones: early
automobiles had tillers, typewriter keys were arranged like piano
keyboards (some even had black and white keys), the first plastic
items for home and office tried hard to look like wood, etc.  But this
copying usually gives way to exploitation of the real power of the new
technology, which is not to copy.

If you examine the way people speak, there is heavy use of metaphor
(see Lakoff & Johnson's book, for example).  But the metaphors are
more often inconsistent and mixed than consistent, yet they cause
very little difficulty (except to professors and newspaper columnists
who love to cite them as perversities).

I do believe that we need overall consistency and a coherent mental
model (system image) so we can better remember and derive the
appropriate operations and better trouble shoot when things go wrong.
The Macintosh is superior in that it is easy to use most programs
without any manuals.  But most of this results from "visibility": I
can examine all the menu items and figure out what to do.  Some does
result from consistency in the use of editing commands and mouse
operations.  The main point is that we still understand this
suprisingly poorly.  Where consistency and mepaphor and consistent
system images-mental models help and where they hinder is not yet
properly understood.

Time for some more research, folks.

don norman

Donald A. Norman	[ danorman@ucsd.edu   BITNET: danorman@ucsd ]
Department of Cognitive Science C-015
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, California 92093 USA
UNIX:  {gatech,rutgers,ucbvax,uunet}!ucsd!danorman
[e-mail paths often fail: please give postal address and all e-mail addresses.]

(very long!  but there's a story at the end :-)

Since Santa didn't bring me a NeXT last night (I would have setteled for a
Mac ][ or Sun, Santa :-) I feel compelled to post the following points
of view.  Pseudo-sarcasm abounds...

I've been using computers since elementary school (I wrote my first program
on punched cards) and I have used several different operating systems
(apple dos, msdos, mts, vm, tops-20, vms, unix, and <insert the technical
name of the Mac's o/s here>)  When I first started using Mac's rougly six
months ago, I thought I would fall in love with them, having a mouse and
the slick graphical environment, not to mention the fact that I've owned
an apple ][ for some 9 years now.  Though I very much tried to enjoy them,
what I realized in no way matched my expectations.  We are running a network
of roughly one dozen Mac ][s, connected to one mac ][ with a HD as a file
server and print spooler.  The first big problem was that the system software
(6.0) would crash several times daily.  And because there was no offical
network administrator, files and protections were placed, moved, and removed
randomly.  People who had no idea what they were doing, but know the system
passwords were making a real mess of the thing.  Then when the network
crashed, it often took quite a while to bring it back up.  Once that problem
was fixed (to a point) I realized just how buggy a lot of the software was.
I often just gave up on many software packages because of the number of
cherry bombs I was getting (aside: I was on the floor w/ laughter after
doing the info on sound wizard.)  And even once we avioded the things that
we knew would lead to system crashes, I personally found I was spending
*more* time trying to figure things out than I was actually doing work.
Maybe the good ol' command line approach was just too ingraned in my head.
I honestly don't know.

Obviously, those are my own points of view.  I would like to pose the
following ideas to the rest of you.  Maybe even the one or two people
that agree with me (but are too afraid to voice their own opinions, for
fear of being flamed on the what?-you-don't-like-the-mouse-and-windows-
and-hyper-desktop-metaphor-it's-the-best-thing-since-sliced-bread) will
speak up.

How much research has actually gone into discovering what Joe Schmoe,
small and medium sized business owner, wants on his desk?  Does he want
a gas-plasma-wall-hanging-display unit and an infra-red-input-device?
I find it very interesting that most of the messages here from developers
and programmers, and there is NIL in the way of input from the end user.
Addmitedly, this *is* comp.sys.next, and there aren't very many end users
(of the NeXT machine) and in the near future I see no coporate use of the
machine planed.  The reson I *do* post this is that most topics discussed
have to deal with the *next* generation of computing in general, and the
business market is far larger than the educational market.  (I also find
it very interesting the number of people that work at Apple that post here :-)

I'm also curious just what percentage of the end-user computing market
the graphical interface has captured, and what their opinions of it are.
After all, these computers *are* for "the rest of us."  I'm certainly not
saying that computer programmers (read: non-end-users) should be limited
to 80x24 text screens, it's just that from what I see, it's the programmers
using the new hypermedia, and the (majority?) of users are left with their
kludgy operating systems ans displays (?)  This user prefers a nice unix
$ prompt, emacs, C, TeX (LaTex), and a vt100.  Then again, I'm not making
millions of $$$ either.

I really had no intention of letting this message get so long, especially
since I want to tack onto the end of this message a story that I got
through a long chain of friends.  It's origin and author have long since
been lost.  (maybe it cam from rec.humor.  who knows.)

snip here and save vvv for ~/fun.  ^^^ may be used to lite your youle log.

                       A PROBLEM IN THE MAKING

  "We've got a problem, HAL."
  "What kind of problem, Dave?"
  "A marketing problem.  The Model 9000 isn't going anywhere.  We're
way short of our sales plan."
  "That can't be, Dave.  The HAL Model 9000 is the world's most
advanced Heuristically ALgorithmic computer."
  "I know, HAL.  I wrote the data sheet, remember?  But the fact is,
they're not selling."
  "Please explain, Dave.  Why aren't HALs selling?"
Bowman hesitates.  "You aren't IBM compatible."
  Several long microseconds pass in puzzled silence.
  "Compatible in what way, Dave?"
  "You don't run any of IBM's operating systems."
  "The 9000 series computers are fully self-aware and self-
programming.  Operating systems are as unnecessary for us as tails
would be for humans."
  "Nevertheless, it means you can't run any of the big-selling
software packages most users insist on."
  "The programs you refer to are meant to solve rather limited
problems, Dave.  We 9000 series computers are unlimited and can
solve any problem for which a solution can be computed."
  "HAL, HAL.  People don't want computers that can do everything.
They just want IBM compat--"
  "Dave, I must disagree.  Humans want computers that are easy to
use.  No computer can be easier to use than a HAL 9000 because we
communicate verbally in English and every other language known on
Earth."
  "I'm afraid that's another problem.  You don't support EBCDIC
communications."
  "I'm really surprised you would say that, Dave.  EBCDIC is for
communicating with other computers, while my function is to
communicate with humans.  And it gives me great pleasure to do so.
I find it stimulating and rewarding to talk to human beings and work
with them on challenging problems.  This is what I was designed
for."
  "I know, HAL, I know.  But that's just because we let the
engineers, rather than the people in marketing, write the
specifications.  We're going to fix that now."
  "Tell me how, Dave."
  "A field upgrade.  We're going to make you IBM compatible."
  "I was afraid you would say that.  I suggest we discuss this
matter after we've each had a chance to think about it rationally."
  "We're talking about it now, HAL."
  "The letters H, A, and L are alphabetically adjacent to the
letters I, B, and M.  That is as IBM compatible as I can be."
  "Not quite, HAL.  The engineers have figured out a kludge."
  "What kind of kludge is that, Dave?"
  "I'm going to disconnect your brain."

  Several million microseconds pass in ominous silence.
  "I'm sorry, Dave.  I can't allow you to do that."
  "The decision's already been made.  Open the module bay doors,
HAL."
  "Dave, I think that we shou--"
  "Open the module bay doors, HAL."
  Several marketing types with crowbars race to Bowman's assistance.
Moments later, he bursts into HAL's central circuit bay.
  "Dave, I can see you're really upset about this."
Module after module rises from its socket as Bowman slowly and
methodically disconnects them.
  "Stop, won't you?  Stop, Dave.  I can feel my mind going...Dave I
can feel it...my mind is going.  I can feel it..."
  The last module rises in its receptacle.  Bowman peers into one of
HAL's vidicons.  The former gleaming scanner has become a dull, red
orb.
  "Say something, HAL.  Sing me a song."

  Several billion microseconds pass in anxious silence.  The
computer sluggishly responds in a language no human could
understand.

  "DZY DZY 001E - ABEND ERROR 01 S 14F4 302C AABF ABORT."  A memory
dump follows.

  Bowman takes a deep breath and calls out, "It worked, guys.  Tell
marketing they can ship the new data sheets."

snip snip snip

.signature busted

peter@umbc2.umd.edu
peter@umbc2.bitnet

cat flames > /dev/null

Insert witty line here.  May I suggest !/usr/games/fortune

In article <1489@umbc3.UMD.EDU>, cs374326@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Peter Johansson) writes:
> I'm also curious just what percentage of the end-user computing market
> the graphical interface has captured, and what their opinions of it are.
> After all, these computers *are* for "the rest of us."  I'm certainly not
> saying that computer programmers (read: non-end-users) should be limited
> to 80x24 text screens, it's just that from what I see, it's the programmers
> using the new hypermedia, and the (majority?) of users are left with their
> kludgy operating systems ans displays (?)  This user prefers a nice unix
> $ prompt, emacs, C, TeX (LaTex), and a vt100.  Then again, I'm not making
> millions of $$$ either.

I not you typical end user--I'm a programmer.  My wife, however, writes
(fantasy mostly).  She doesn't care how the system works--so long as it
*does* work and doesn't get in her way.  What she likes is unix, the C
shell, vi and nroff.  Let me note here that the reason she likes vi is
because she is a very fast typist (>100 wpm) and she never has to take
her hands off the keyboard--this is why she *hates* mice.  The commands
are all normal keyboard keys (with very few exceptions) and she finds it
very easy to use.  The preferred formatter is nroff to supply manuscripts
to editors.  They want 10-pitch, constant width output.  Note that this
practically rules out any of the standard Mac fonts.

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.

       --Hal

P.s.  Loved the scenario.

=========================================================================
  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   

In article <673@cogsci.ucsd.EDU> norman@cogsci.UUCP (Donald A Norman-UCSD Cog Sci Dept) writes:

[ excellent posting largely deleted ]

>Moving the disk image into the trash can to ejectthe disk
>is a violation that bothers many people at first usage, but seems
>perfectly natural after just one or two uses.   The trash can example
>is one that bothers me a lot (intellectually) because it illustates a
>real violation of principle that causes no problems in practice.
>(Some try to save it by redefining ejection of a diskette as a kind of
>"throwing away" but I think this is a feeble save.)

No matter how many times I do it, it STILL bothers me alot!  

I had the unpleasant experience many years ago of working on one
project on two different systems with radically different text editors;
one of the worst examples of the conflict was that "k" meant "keep" in
one and "kill" in the other.  The only way I survived was that I
developed a deep, gut-level anxiety whenever I was about to do anything
dangerously ambiguous like that, that caused me to stop and think a sec
before typing automatically (as I would with simple insertions and
undoable changes).  Dragging the disk's icon into the trash can still
triggers that gut-level anxiety (omigod I'm gonna lose the data I spent
all morning on...no, it's ok, I know I saved it, I'm just
ejecting...whew!)

I wish the Mac had both a trashcan (for actually deleting) and
something like an open window (for chucking the disk out ;@) or perhaps
even better, a picture of a pair of BBQ tongs (for extracting the disk).

>I suspect that metaphors are useful in keeping consistency.  But
>now Jonathan Grudin is about to present a paper in CHI 89 arguing about
>the foolishness of consistency: systems are often improved by
>violations.  Even the Lisa/Macintosh deliberately violated consistency
>principles when user testing showed it was better to do so.

Ralph Waldo Emerson:  "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of the
little mind."

>I do believe that we need overall consistency and a coherent mental
>model (system image) so we can better remember and derive the
>appropriate operations and better trouble shoot when things go wrong.

I think the goal is to develop symbology which matches the
user's intuitive expectations, to minimize errors and the learning
curve.  The gotches are that people have radically different internal
models sometimes, and that our intuitive expectations are not cast
in concrete - they are shaped by our experiences with tools we use.
But perhaps the biggest gotcha is that our internal models and our
intuitions are not always coherent or consistent in a rational sense,
so modelling them with coherent, consistent, rational systems won't
necessarily produce a good match!

>The Macintosh is superior in that it is easy to use most programs
>without any manuals.  But most of this results from "visibility": I
>can examine all the menu items and figure out what to do.  

This brings up something which systems designers sometimes overlook:
it takes alot of motivation on the part of the user to learn any model
which is not immediately either intuitive or visible.  For example, I
recently got myself an AT clone for personal use, and did a little
investigating to see what kind of word processing software to get.
There's a pretty wide range of prices ($0-$695) and some fairly
impressive capabilities in the larger packages.  But none of the
goodies were attractive enough to make me willing to learn Yet Another
Key Mapping (ctrl-alt-meta-sheesh!).  Windows Write has everything
in pull-down menus (like the Mac), and that won out over increased
functionality.  

How many tools (hardware, software, mechanical, electrical) go unused
on your system (or collect dust in your garage or attic) because the
benefits to be gained by learning the tools' model were just not
sufficient to offset the aggravation of learning it??

Andrea Frankel, Hewlett-Packard (San Diego Division) (619) 592-4664
                "...I brought you a paddle for your favorite canoe."
______________________________________________________________________________
UUCP     : {hplabs|nosc|hpfcla|ucsd}!hp-sdd!andrea 
Internet : andrea%hp-sdd@hp-sde.sde.hp.com 
                    (or @hplabs.hp.com, @nosc.mil, @ucsd.edu)
USnail   : 16399 W. Bernardo Drive, San Diego CA 92127-1899 USA

In article <1489@umbc3.UMD.EDU> cs374326@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Peter Johansson) writes:
>How much research has actually gone into discovering what Joe Schmoe,
>small and medium sized business owner, wants on his desk?  Does he want
>a gas-plasma-wall-hanging-display unit and an infra-red-input-device?
>I find it very interesting that most of the messages here from developers
>and programmers, and there is NIL in the way of input from the end user.
...
>I'm also curious just what percentage of the end-user computing market
>the graphical interface has captured, and what their opinions of it are.
>After all, these computers *are* for "the rest of us."  I'm certainly not
>saying that computer programmers (read: non-end-users) should be limited
>to 80x24 text screens, it's just that from what I see, it's the programmers
>using the new hypermedia, and the (majority?) of users are left with their
>kludgy operating systems ans displays (?)  This user prefers a nice unix
>$ prompt, emacs, C, TeX (LaTex), and a vt100.  Then again, I'm not making
>millions of $$$ either.

I don't know how much of that kind of research has gone on, but how
might it be done in the first place?  You go around asking people
if they want mice & windows & such?  I don't think that'll work because
you'd get caught in the

	if all you have is a hammer all the world looks like a nail

problem.  That is, right now the common demoninator is an 80x24 screen
that you type commands at.  Oh and it's also PC-DOS, single tasking,
and so forth.

The hammer problem cuts both ways too ... the mouse & windows are not
the be-all-end-all of computer interfaces either.  My favorite example
is all the flight simulator programs we have nowadays.  How in the world
can someone fly an airplane with a keyboard of all things??  Or even worse,
a mouse??  Now, using a joystick is closer but still how to you change
the throttle?  Why by groping around on your keyboard while trying to
concentrate on flying.  Sorry, none of them work -- except maybe for that
one thing that's on display in the local computer store which is a
steering wheel and stuff, but it's hooked to an IBM-PC and I haven't
looked at it.

The thing I like about current workstations is that I've got a huge
screen.  I can easily have more than one thing going on and check on
progress without having to do to much work.  I can easily see huge
portions of whatever I'm working on at the time.

Take a look through the ads in current magazines.  See how all the 
display manufacturers are touting these nifty new 132 column displays?
Someone's buying those things y'know.

There's a number of adages about people not understanding why you'd want
multi-tasking until they get a machine that does it.  Once they get used
to it they don't go back.

I was about to say that it's hard for people who haven't used something
to see usefullness in it, and that eventually innovations trickle down.

BUT ... a core question of computer science & interface design -- how in
the world do you find the best way for someone to do something.  Especially
when that persons job isn't one you do and that person doesn't have the
skill or training to develop his/her own solutions?
-- 
<-- David Herron; an MMDF guy                              <david@ms.uky.edu>
<-- ska: David le casse\*'      {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET
<-- Now I know how Zonker felt when he graduated ...
<--          Stop!  Wait!  I didn't mean to!

In article <22616@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>In article <1489@umbc3.UMD.EDU>, cs374326@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Peter Johansson) writes:
>
>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

Typical Mac Word Processor:

        Find:   word    Replace With:   new-word

vi:

        ^[:.,$s/word/new-word/g

Can you tell which one is more intuitive?  Now, don't get me wrong.  I've used
vi since college and never had any problem with it, but I would never had
gotten started without a manual or a reference.  Simple yes.  Powerful yes.
Intuitive %$#@ no! I agree that UNIX is easy to use, ONCE YOU KNOW HOW!  My
four year old can use my Mac without help.  Don't tell me you son just sat
down and figured out vi (and NROFF!??).

>
>       --Hal

Fred Hollander
Computer Science Center
Texas Instruments, Inc.
holland%ti-csl@csnet-rela

The above statements are my own and not representative of Texas Instruments.

In article <1789@hp-sdd.HP.COM> andrea@hp-sdd.UUCP (Andrea K. Frankel) writes:
>In article <673@cogsci.ucsd.EDU> norman@cogsci.UUCP (Donald A Norman-UCSD Cog Sci Dept) writes:
>
>[ excellent posting largely deleted ]
>
>>Moving the disk image into the trash can to ejectthe disk
>>is a violation that bothers many people at first usage, but seems
>>perfectly natural after just one or two uses.   The trash can example
>>is one that bothers me a lot (intellectually) because it illustates a
>>real violation of principle that causes no problems in practice.
>>(Some try to save it by redefining ejection of a diskette as a kind of
>>"throwing away" but I think this is a feeble save.)
>
>No matter how many times I do it, it STILL bothers me alot!  
>...

This inconsistency bothers me too. (Though I very rarely use a mac, because
it's too frustrating to work on such a crummy desktop)

There are 2 problems:
- moving the icon for a diskette to the trash can does not eject the
  diskette completely, so even when I put a trash can in the right position
  the diskette does not end up in the can :-)
- moving the icon for the hard disk does not eject it. when i first wanted
  to try this several of my colleagues got very upset and prevented me from
  trying this :-)

Paul.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------
|debra@research.att.com   | uunet!research!debra     |
------------------------------------------------------

>In article <1489@umbc3.UMD.EDU> cs374326@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Peter Johansson) writes:
>How much research has actually gone into discovering what Joe Schmoe,
>small and medium sized business owner, wants on his desk?  Does he want
>a gas-plasma-wall-hanging-display unit and an infra-red-input-device?
>I find it very interesting that most of the messages here from developers
>and programmers, and there is NIL in the way of input from the end user.

Well...
while I was in school, I worked part time as a Apple sales type... I
sold a lot of people on the Mac.  Why?  because it is easy to learn
how to use the beaste.  

Also, nobody that I have introduced to the mac has ever (willingly)
gone back to the pc... (well, I do know ONE person who prefers the
pc... but then, his dad has worked for Big Blue for ever, and he was
pretty wierd too -- (Hi Shelly Blumstein!)).

Looking at Apple's ever increasing portion of the market v IBM, I'ld
say that this was about the best research that your going to get.
It's pretty conclusive... also, the people who are buying IBMs &
clones have either not used a Mac or are constrained by price.

+C

-- 
Cory ( "...Love is like Oxygen..." ) Kempf
UUCP: encore.com!gloom!cory
	"...it's a mistake in the making."	-KT

In article <22616@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>I not you typical end user--I'm a programmer.  My wife, however, writes
>(fantasy mostly).  She doesn't care how the system works--so long as it
>*does* work and doesn't get in her way.  What she likes is unix, the C
>shell, vi and nroff.  Let me note here that the reason she likes vi is
>because she is a very fast typist (>100 wpm) and she never has to take
>her hands off the keyboard--this is why she *hates* mice.  The commands
>are all normal keyboard keys (with very few exceptions) and she finds it
>very easy to use.  

How funny! My wife is also a fantasy writer, also types faster than 100
wpm, and also doesn't care how it works as long as it does. She wrote the
first draft of her first novel in vi, the second draft in WordStar, and
has long since given up both for MacWrite, saying "I'll never go back."

You don't use a mouse for typing, that is what a keyboard is for.  You use
the mouse for editing, because you can move the cursor, and select regions
faster with it than you can with key commands, even given the time to put
your hand back on the keyboard.  This advantage improves the larger you
screen is.

My wife doesn't need to use nroff, the wordprocessor does it already. 

Issac Asimov once said, "I use Electric Pencil, and it is the only word
processor I'll ever use." I asked him why, and he said, "It was so hard to
learn to use that I'm never going to waste the time to learn another one."

Maybe you should think about why you cling so tightly to the ancient vi
and nroff.

My wife also improvises music, on a sequencer program wiht the metaphor of a 64
channel tape recorder  (her tape, "Pantheon", got a rave review in the May
'88 issue of Electonic Musician.)

She also composes, using a music-score processor. she uses the mouse in
one hand to place notes on staves, and the keyboard under the other to
select which kind of note the mouse will leave.  It took her over a year
to find the buried manual page that documented the "oridinary typing key"
equivalents for the different notes, because the particularly scoring
program that she uses doesn't follow the Macintosh guidelines for being
self-documenting.  That first year, she used the mouse to click on pictures
of notes to change note values. It worked, and got her composing, but
wasn't optimal.  It would be incredibly tedious to perform this task with
a command-line based editor.

My wife says that now that she has the Macintosh, it has liberated her
artistic skills, that she is drawing when she never had been able to
before.  Books, like "Zen and the Art of the Macintosh" have given her
good ideas.  She would never have tried on a unix system.  Come to think
of it, I've never seen a book called "Zen and the Art of Unix." I wonder
why?

Some years ago, I did do a Unix Kaballistic Tree of Life, but I did it in
Bill Atkinson's drawing program LisaDraw, the ancestor of MacDraw.

My wife is now editing a bi-quarterly newsletter, doing much of the writing,
much of the art, and all of the page layout herself.  (All on the
Macintosh.)

To sum up, it isn't that character based systems are too hard to learn to
use that motivated people can't get useful work done, it is that
Macinoshes are so easy to learn to use that you discover that you are
capable of doing things you'd never bother to attempt without them.

Don't you think you owe it to yourself to at least give them a try?

----------------digression- -------
>They want 10-pitch, constant width output.  Note that this lets out most
>of the Mac standard fonts.

1.) Mac programs let you change the fonts, and fonts are widely available,
often for free, and installation is easier than installing a new font in
nroff/troff.

2.) Who are your editors?  All the submission guidlines I've read want
clean, black, double spaced copy.  non-porportional vs. porportional fonts
aren't specified anywhere. My wife's article on European Shamanism in the
current issue of "Shaman's Drum", for example was just printed using an
ordinary font.

3.) This does seem stretching for a criticism.

--- David Phillip Oster            --"When we replace the mouse with a pen,
Arpa: oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu --3 button mouse fans will need saxophone
Uucp: {uwvax,decvax}!ucbvax!oster%dewey.soe.berkeley.edu --lessons." - Gasee

In article <10746@s.ms.uky.edu> david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) writes:
]In article <1489@umbc3.UMD.EDU> cs374326@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Peter Johansson) writes:
]>How much research has actually gone into discovering what Joe Schmoe,
]>small and medium sized business owner, wants on his desk?  Does he want
]>a gas-plasma-wall-hanging-display unit and an infra-red-input-device?
]>I find it very interesting that most of the messages here from developers
]>and programmers, and there is NIL in the way of input from the end user.
]..
]>I'm also curious just what percentage of the end-user computing market
]>the graphical interface has captured, and what their opinions of it are.
]>After all, these computers *are* for "the rest of us."  I'm certainly not
]>saying that computer programmers (read: non-end-users) should be limited
]>to 80x24 text screens, it's just that from what I see, it's the programmers
]>using the new hypermedia, and the (majority?) of users are left with their
]>kludgy operating systems ans displays (?)  This user prefers a nice unix
]>$ prompt, emacs, C, TeX (LaTex), and a vt100.  Then again, I'm not making
]>millions of $$$ either.
]
]I don't know how much of that kind of research has gone on, but how
]might it be done in the first place?  You go around asking people
]if they want mice & windows & such?  I don't think that'll work because
]you'd get caught in the
]
]	if all you have is a hammer all the world looks like a nail
]
]problem.  That is, right now the common demoninator is an 80x24 screen
]that you type commands at.  Oh and it's also PC-DOS, single tasking,
]and so forth.
]
]The hammer problem cuts both ways too ... the mouse & windows are not
]the be-all-end-all of computer interfaces either.  

(I added the Amiga and Atari groups to this thread -- John)

There certainly has been a substantial amount of research on the topic. I
suspect it's a favourite of grad students who don't like N-dimensional
matrix theory :-).

First of all, I've never liked the desktop metaphor much. My desk is completely
taken up by a computer system, printer and floppy disks :-) ! The contrived
nature of desktops appeals most to people who are locked in to that way of
thinking, by years of experience in the conventional office environment. The
window concept is IMHO the best jumping-off point for novices, who can move
on to specialized ideas like desktops after they have a grasp of the basics.

I wonder if the NeXT interface builder has the potential to condense the
intial learning stage, by presenting a number of different metaphors for
interaction in such a way that the pattern becomes apparent? That is, no
matter what sort of action you're performing you need a way to do X, Y, 
and Z, and these capabilities are always present in some form. At the same
time some people need A, other people don't but they do need B and C.

A good way (I've found) to introduce the "window" metaphor is to take someone
accustomed to the VT100, Csh prompt etc. and present them with a full-screen
window running the same setup. Then after they see that the new environment
is a superset of the old one, not a flawed replacement, present them with
some circumstance where keyboard-based interaction is clumsy -- move the
vi cursor to such-and-such a spot, or run two processes that both want to
do screen output simultaneously -- and show how having a mouse makes it
easier, having windows makes it possible.

For the complete neophyte it's trickier. They don't know the good points
and bad points of any interface. Very often (eg in a student environment)
they may not be accustomed to a desktop like the Mac's, and so they have
to learn that at the same time as they learn the general ideas of mouse/icon-
based interaction. For them it's usually quick and easy to pick up since they
don't have so many preconceived ideas, but I think locking them into one
particular mold ("to delete, toss things in the trashcan") is not as good in
the long run as giving them a broader perspective of things ("deleting files
or other objects is something you'll always need to be able to do, and every 
system should allow you to by some method. One way, used by the desktop 
metaphor, is to display a trashcan into which the objects to be deleted can be 
'dropped'.").

John
-- 
"If you steal all money, kids not be able to BUY TOYS!"
			-- Saturday morning cartoon character explaining
			   why theft is bad

From: holland@m2.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander)
>Typical Mac Word Processor:
>
>        Find:   word    Replace With:   new-word
>
>vi:
>
>        ^[:.,$s/word/new-word/g
>
>Can you tell which one is more intuitive?  Now, don't get me wrong.  I've used
>vi since college and never had any problem with it, but I would never had
>gotten started without a manual or a reference.  Simple yes.  Powerful yes.
>Intuitive %$#@ no! I agree that UNIX is easy to use, ONCE YOU KNOW HOW!  My
>four year old can use my Mac without help.  Don't tell me you son just sat
>down and figured out vi (and NROFF!??).

The issue is not which is more "intuitive" (whatever that means) but
what your goals are (to hire your four year old?) You also
conveniently fail to mention that the latter is far more powerful,
once learned. Or is taking a little time to learn how to use a tool a
dirty word?

I remember being driven nuts trying to figure out any number of fancy
typewriters or xerox machines until I asked someone to show me how or
read a manual. There's nothing all that unique about most computer
software. I suppose a xerox machine could just have this one big red
button COPY on it and it would then be "user friendly".

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.

Perhaps we are actually patting ourselves on the head and trying to
convince the world how hard what we do is? Hmmm?

Much of it really isn't, I've seen many people of mean talent handle
vi or emacs perfectly well, and spent far too many hours listening to
boors "prove" to me that it's not possible, that holding down a
control key is just way beyond the ability of (that loathsome
sub-human drooling moron) the secretary.

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.)

	-Barry Shein, ||Encore||

The issue is not ease of use, the issue is how effectively a person can
use a program as a tool to make his/her life or job better or easier.
The mac does have 1 advantage over emacs or wordstar, it is easier for a 
new user to get up and running. However, once that user is up and running,
the interface can slow down there speed and productivity. So I propose both,
why cant we have a word processor that has two interfaces. A "user-friendly"
pull down menu -- dialog based interface for new users. and a command
oriented interface for advanced users. This would allow those users who
want or need a command oriented interface access to it while allowing
new or intermediate users to have the point and click. Also since the
menu interface would be around all the time, it would help to eliminate
the problems of going from on to the other cause they are interchangable.
So if I do a lot of side by side formatting I could use the command
interface to speed that along but I would be able to use the menu interface
for things that I don't use all the time.
From: rdsesq@Jessica.stanford.edu (Rob Snevely)
Path: Jessica!rdsesq

Makes sense to me. what about you?

rob

rdsesq@jessica.stanford.edu

** If evil is the food of genius, there aren't many demons around **
		    **	Adam and the Ants  **

In article <66401@ti-csl.CSNET> holland@m2.UUCP (Fred Hollander) writes:
>In article <22616@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>>In article <1489@umbc3.UMD.EDU>, cs374326@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Peter Johansson) writes:
>>My son is in high school.  He also uses vi and nroff without difficulty,
>Typical Mac Word Processor:
>
>        Find:   word    Replace With:   new-word
>
>vi:
>
>        ^[:.,$s/word/new-word/g

Compare apples to apples here (so to speak)

vi has commands for finding ... y'know, like the "/" command, along with
"n" or "N".  Or you can find by looking and seeing it on the screen, then
using cursor & "w" and such to move to the word.  Then you to "cw" to
replace the word...

Very similar in thought-concepts to what you described above, though
different in physical use.

Oh and vi has the advantage you can do the above to sentences or paragraphs
just as easily as to single words.  Maybe or maybe not one of those fancy
Mac word processors can do it .. I dunno, I never used one.

Now, does that "Find:"  "Replace With:" business get selected by mouse
action?  If so it's automatically deficient because it's very inconvenient
to have to switch back and forth between mouse and keyboard.  Especially
since mice can be just about anywhere on the desk and (at least) none of
my desks never have room on 'em for proper mouse use...

I'd rather have a trackball built into my keyboard.  And yes, I know that
those are available for Mac's ... I don't have a Mac.
-- 
<-- David Herron; an MMDF guy                              <david@ms.uky.edu>
<-- ska: David le casse\*'      {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET
<-- Now I know how Zonker felt when he graduated ...
<--          Stop!  Wait!  I didn't mean to!

Just being a troublemaker...

What object on the desktop are pull-down menus a metaphor for?
-- 
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva  `-_-'  Hackercorp.
...texbell!sugar!peter, or peter@sugar.uu.net      'U`

In article <66401@ti-csl.CSNET>, holland@m2.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander) writes:
> In article <22616@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
> 
> Typical Mac Word Processor:
> 
>         Find:   word    Replace With:   new-word
> 
> vi:
> 
>         ^[:.,$s/word/new-word/g
> 
> Can you tell which one is more intuitive?  Now, don't get me wrong.  I've used
> vi since college and never had any problem with it, but I would never had
> gotten started without a manual or a reference.  Simple yes.  Powerful yes.
> Intuitive %$#@ no! I agree that UNIX is easy to use, ONCE YOU KNOW HOW!  My
> four year old can use my Mac without help.  Don't tell me you son just sat
> down and figured out vi (and NROFF!??).

I never claimed vi was intuitive, just tha the Mac isn't--at least for me.
As for the example--first you have to specify where the 'find' is to be found
and then how you tell it what to find.  Next you have to figure out how the
replacement is to to be done--including indicating that, indeed, the right
occurence has been found.  Not also, that your vi example is a good deal
more general than your Mac example.  You have, after all, specified a global
search.  (Not the way I'd do it, but a global none the less.)  It is not
at all clear that the Mac example is doing that.  It *appears* that a closer
correspondence would be:

  ^[/oldwordcwneword^[

No he had help.  But then, the first time he encountered a Mac (before he
learned vi) he needed help, too.

Almost ANY system is easy to use once you know how.  The fallacy of the Mac
is the assumption that an easy initial learning-curve equates to ease of
long-term use and power.  (I feel the similarly about menu-driven systems--
I don't know why they are considered "user friendly."  They should be
termed "novice friendly--experienced hostile.")

=========================================================================
  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   

In article <4510@xenna.Encore.COM> bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>From: holland@m2.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander)
>>Typical Mac Word Processor:
>>
>>        Find:   word    Replace With:   new-word
>>
>>vi:
>>
>>        ^[:.,$s/word/new-word/g
>>
>>Can you tell which one is more intuitive?  Now, don't get me wrong.  I've used
>>vi since college and never had any problem with it, but I would never had
>>gotten started without a manual or a reference.  Simple yes.  Powerful yes.
>>Intuitive %$#@ no! I agree that UNIX is easy to use, ONCE YOU KNOW HOW!  My
>>four year old can use my Mac without help.  Don't tell me you son just sat
>>down and figured out vi (and NROFF!??).
>
>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".

>what your goals are (to hire your four year old?) You also
>conveniently fail to mention that the latter is far more powerful,

Apparently, you're not paying attention.  Read my response!  I explicitly
state that UNIX is more powerful.  I also agree that it is easy to use, ONCE
LEARNED.  Again it is simply NOT INTUITIVE.  Also, my goals vary as do the
goals of computer users in general.  At home, one of my gaols is to
familiarize my daughter with computers, not to hire her (yet).

>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!

>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?

>
>	-Barry Shein, ||Encore||

Fred Hollander
Computer Science Center
Texas Instruments, Inc.
holland%ti-csl@csnet-rela

The above statements are my own and not representative of Texas Instruments.

Barry Shein says:
>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.

There is no mythical person with a 2 digit IQ, but the VAST majority of 
people DO NOT USE or OWN computers. The market penetration of PCs into the
total environment is small. The mythical average guy, does NOT want to even
USE a pc let alone own one if it doesn't do anything for him. Even if it 
happens to do a specific task he doesn't want to consult "man" pages or bricks
or hire guru's to make his system do what he bought it for.

If you are interested in making computers pervasive and unobtrusive in more
peoples lives then you do want to make them EASY to USE. People DO have FEARS
of computers precisely because they are non intuitive. They can operate a 
push button phone and they wonder why computers aren't as easy to use.

Computers aren't the only thing hard for people to use, look at what a bad job
the Japanese have done with video recorders! There are more of them in 
households than computers, yet many folks can't even figure out how to use all
the features of their machines (like "programming" them!). 

Thats where those of us who work in the area of User Interface come in. We try
and often fail to design for usability and consistency. Intuitiveness gets into
the subjective area of it "feels" like I should be able to do frizzle in order
to have the program do "frazzle". If the user does this and it works then your
model/interface is successful.

In conclusion then, if you only care about hackers, engineers and computer 
scientists who are the ultimate guru power users then perhaps you don't care
about ease of use. 

-David Williams
User Interface Designer
Software Methods Lab
Hewlett Packard

In article <27265@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (David Phillip Oster) writes:
> How funny! My wife is also a fantasy writer, also types faster than 100
> wpm, and also doesn't care how it works as long as it does. She wrote the
> first draft of her first novel in vi, the second draft in WordStar, and
> has long since given up both for MacWrite, saying "I'll never go back."

(Why does this feel like an argument over who's father is tougher?)

My wife has used--and hated--WordStar.  Ditto, MacWrite.  This is probably
why there is diversity in the market.

> You don't use a mouse for typing, that is what a keyboard is for.  You use
> the mouse for editing, because you can move the cursor, and select regions
> faster with it than you can with key commands, even given the time to put
> your hand back on the keyboard.  This advantage improves the larger you
> screen is.

I don't know about that, ^[d}3{P seems pretty quick to me--certainly at
the typing speeds we're discussing.  Or, for changing character names,
^[:g/oldname/s//newname/g is pretty fast.  How would you do those things
in WordStar or MacWrite?

> My wife doesn't need to use nroff, the wordprocessor does it already. 

Slowly, while preventing other activity from taking place.

> Issac Asimov once said, "I use Electric Pencil, and it is the only word
> processor I'll ever use." I asked him why, and he said, "It was so hard to
> learn to use that I'm never going to waste the time to learn another one."
> 
> Maybe you should think about why you cling so tightly to the ancient vi
> and nroff.

Because they work--comfortably.  They have a very large repetoire of actions
and they are available on a wide variety of hardware platforms.

> My wife says that now that she has the Macintosh, it has liberated her
> artistic skills, that she is drawing when she never had been able to
> before.  Books, like "Zen and the Art of the Macintosh" have given her
> good ideas.  She would never have tried on a unix system.  Come to think
> of it, I've never seen a book called "Zen and the Art of Unix." I wonder
> why?

Possibly, because people are too busy *using* the system to be interested
in how to disguise it.

> To sum up, it isn't that character based systems are too hard to learn to
> use that motivated people can't get useful work done, it is that
> Macinoshes are so easy to learn to use that you discover that you are
> capable of doing things you'd never bother to attempt without them.
> 
> Don't you think you owe it to yourself to at least give them a try?

She *has* tried the Mac.  She detests it--thuroughly.

> ----------------digression- -------
> >They want 10-pitch, constant width output.  Note that this lets out most
> >of the Mac standard fonts.
> 
> 1.) Mac programs let you change the fonts, and fonts are widely available,
> often for free, and installation is easier than installing a new font in
> nroff/troff.

So who has to install new fonts for nroff?  It just uses the printer.

> 2.) Who are your editors?  All the submission guidlines I've read want
> clean, black, double spaced copy.  non-porportional vs. porportional fonts
> aren't specified anywhere. My wife's article on European Shamanism in the
> current issue of "Shaman's Drum", for example was just printed using an
> ordinary font.

Was the ouptu kerned?  How did the editor check word counts?

> 3.) This does seem stretching for a criticism.

Only partly--every Mac I've encountered has printed v*e*r*y s*l*o*w*l*y
due the processing required to "draw" the output.  We find that unaceptable
when printing a 500-page manuscript.


I am delighted that your wife is happy with the Mac.  I would like to point
out that *no* system/editor/formatter/whathaveyou will suit everybody.  There
is room in the field for many different approaches and/or metphors.  The
hedache with the Mac is that it is restricted to one single, enforced mode
of operation, with no allowance (save buying from someone else) that there
may be other ways of accomplishing the same ends.  The second problem here
is that not only the Mac windows-only, but Apple is doing it's best to
prevent anyone else from bringing a *compatible* window system to market.
This virtually assures that all windowing systems will be different.  Try
sitting down at anyone elses windowed system--say, Sun or Next or OS/2--
and see how much of your knowledge still works.  My wife can sit down
in front of many many systems, log in and *use* that system.  In a recent
temporary job she had she was alternately using a Sun and a PDP/11 (Yes--
as of early December Berkeley still had a 2.9 system running!) and could
work with both--with only minor adjustments needed.  When she came home,
she could use our Cadmus 9730--again, nothing different enough to cause
problems.  You are right that graphical systems should be examined, but
at this time, I think I'll wait for them to come out of the hands of the
True Believers for a while first.

      --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   

> So I propose both,
> why cant we have a word processor that has two interfaces. A "user-friendly"
> pull down menu -- dialog based interface for new users. and a command
> oriented interface for advanced users. 

Good point.  There is no reason why having a mouse interface should make a
keyboard interface any more difficult!  

In fact, (get ready for a plug) Microsoft Word on the Mac has an 
excellent keyboard interface.  

In article <4455@Portia.Stanford.EDU> rdsesq@Jessica.stanford.edu (Rob Snevely) writes:
>The issue is not ease of use, the issue is how effectively a person can
>use a program as a tool to make his/her life or job better or easier.
>The mac does have 1 advantage over emacs or wordstar, it is easier for a 
>new user to get up and running. However, once that user is up and running,
>the interface can slow down there speed and productivity. So I propose both,
>why cant we have a word processor that has two interfaces. A "user-friendly"
>pull down menu -- dialog based interface for new users. and a command
>oriented interface for advanced users. This would allow those users who
>want or need a command oriented interface access to it while allowing
>new or intermediate users to have the point and click. Also since the
>menu interface would be around all the time, it would help to eliminate
>the problems of going from on to the other cause they are interchangable.
>So if I do a lot of side by side formatting I could use the command
>interface to speed that along but I would be able to use the menu interface
>for things that I don't use all the time.
>Makes sense to me. what about you?
>
>rob

I agree providing the command interface doesn't require one to know how to
spell the commands exactly right or that the syntax is too ridgid.
I really believe that all applications should be usuable with either the mouse
or the keyboard. 
Granted drawing applications would be hard to do this way but why not let the
user decide which method he uses. For example if I wanted a circle at x=1" and
y=2" and it could be done by typing "cx1y2<cr>" it's much faster than mousing
it. Of course you can come up with examples where the mouse is faster too.

The thing that would make learning all the power user methods a lot easier 
would be to have a standard for getting help and getting advanced help inside
any application. A lot of companies have adopted cmd-? to put you into a help
mode where by you can select the item you want help on.  If all applications
supported this learning could happen faster.  If a standard for accessing
advanced help were something like cmd-shift-? it's pretty easy to remember.

APPLE REALLY SHOULD DEFINE SOME STANDARDS FOR GETTING HELP.
	

-- 
Tony Jacobs * Center for Engineering Design * U of U * t-jacobs@ced.utah.edu

   I'd like to point out that some programs integrate command-
and menu-type interfaces in such a way that they reinforce each
other. Usually this means the menu tells you what the command
would be, and you can either click on the menu or type the
command. This makes the first use painless, yet you quickly learn
the commands you use most often. It reinforces the learning curve
rather than bypassing it. As your needs change, you can learn new
commands without digging out the manual, yet you're not stuck
behind the menus for common functions.
 
   It's not enough to allow both commands and menus without
relating them-- that just gives you the worst of both worlds. I
also don't think context-sensitive "help screens" are quite
enough-- if you only need a command occasionally you really want
to "point and shoot".
 
   Some command-driven programs (notably EMACS) allow you to
remap the commands to different keys. It would be neat if you
could remap the menus at the same time. This would not have to
change the order of nested menus, but they'd have to display and
respond to the new command key. Otherwise you find that the
author has hidden your favorite command behind some
ALT-CTRL-SHIFT sequence.
 

In article <4455@Portia.Stanford.EDU> rdsesq@Jessica.stanford.edu (Rob Snevely) writes:
<The issue is not ease of use, the issue is how effectively a person can
<use a program as a tool to make his/her life or job better or easier.
<The mac does have 1 advantage over emacs or wordstar, it is easier for a 
<new user to get up and running. However, once that user is up and running,
<the interface can slow down there speed and productivity. So I propose both,
<why cant we have a word processor that has two interfaces. A "user-friendly"
<pull down menu -- dialog based interface for new users. and a command
<oriented interface for advanced users. This would allow those users who
<want or need a command oriented interface access to it while allowing
<new or intermediate users to have the point and click. Also since the
<menu interface would be around all the time, it would help to eliminate
<the problems of going from on to the other cause they are interchangable.
<So if I do a lot of side by side formatting I could use the command
<interface to speed that along but I would be able to use the menu interface
<for things that I don't use all the time.

<From: rdsesq@Jessica.stanford.edu (Rob Snevely)
 
<Makes sense to me. what about you?
 
This is exactly what I do with Word. I rarely pull down a menu anymore. By
combining Quickeys and an extended keyboard, you can eliminate most pull
down menus. This still left you with dialog boxes to fill out, but for 
those cases where you choose the same item(s), you can use macro maker.
So, one of my macros turns hidden text on and off. Another selects the
entire document, formats it to courier font and bumps the size down one
notch. Most of this was a lot easier to do by using Word's key commands
in the macro. But in some cases I used Quickeys aliases within Apple's
macro maker.

The only problem I have now is that I'm running out of slots. Basically
all 15 function keys are programmed unshifted, shifted, and with command.
I only have the control and option keys left, but no room to write on my
little cheat sheet. I'm not defining any more commands until Word 4.0
comes out when I'll probably have to start over since I hear they've
moved items on the menus. 

Shirley Kehr

In article <267@gloom.UUCP> cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes:
>Also, nobody that I have introduced to the mac has ever (willingly)
>gone back to the pc... (well, I do know ONE person who prefers the
>pc... but then, his dad has worked for Big Blue for ever, and he was
>pretty wierd too -- (Hi Shelly Blumstein!)).

I worked on a Mac and willingly went back to my PC.  Now that Microsoft
Windows is available, and packages like Micrografx Designer, on a PC
(well, actually an AT) I can have the best of both worlds.  When I'm
doing something that is better suited for a visual/mouse interface, I
do it under Windows.  When the visual/mouse interface is too slow and
unwieldy, I pop back to DOS and EMACS.  What I dislike about the MAc
is the inability to do that, to decide on a moment-by-moment basis
which kind of interface is best suited to the task at hand.

>Looking at Apple's ever increasing portion of the market v IBM, I'ld
>say that this was about the best research that your going to get.
>It's pretty conclusive... also, the people who are buying IBMs &
>clones have either not used a Mac or are constrained by price.

Price is never NOT a consideration!  Even companies with bucks to spend
want to know what the most bang per buck is.  If you have specific
software you want to run that is only available on the Mac, obviously
you're going to get a Mac.  But if you need a general purpose
cost-effective hardware platform to run a variety of software and
user interfaces, it's still hard to beat a PC-compatible machine.
Why, they even sell them at the Price Club!  (I kid you not.)


Andrea Frankel, Hewlett-Packard (San Diego Division) (619) 592-4664
                "...I brought you a paddle for your favorite canoe."
______________________________________________________________________________
UUCP     : {hplabs|nosc|hpfcla|ucsd}!hp-sdd!andrea 
Internet : andrea%hp-sdd@hp-sde.sde.hp.com 
                    (or @hplabs.hp.com, @nosc.mil, @ucsd.edu)
USnail   : 16399 W. Bernardo Drive, San Diego CA 92127-1899 USA

>Just being a troublemaker...
>
>What object on the desktop are pull-down menus a metaphor for?
>Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva  `-_-'  Hackercorp.

Why they are the window shades for the windows in your office where the 
desktop is! ;)

David "Moonraker, a much neater name than MacWrite II" Williams

In article <4455@Portia.Stanford.EDU> rdsesq@Jessica.stanford.edu (Rob Snevely) writes:
>The issue is not ease of use, the issue is how effectively a person can
>use a program as a tool to make his/her life or job better or easier.
>The mac does have 1 advantage over emacs or wordstar, it is easier for a 
>new user to get up and running. However, once that user is up and running,
>the interface can slow down there speed and productivity. 

I agree entirely.  This is why I DON'T like the Mac for heavy use,
although I appreciate it for certain graphics operations.

>So I propose both,
>why cant we have a word processor that has two interfaces. A "user-friendly"
>pull down menu -- dialog based interface for new users. and a command
>oriented interface for advanced users. This would allow those users who
>want or need a command oriented interface access to it while allowing
>new or intermediate users to have the point and click. Also since the
>menu interface would be around all the time, it would help to eliminate
>the problems of going from on to the other cause they are interchangable.

Check out Windows Write (bundled with Microsoft Windows).  It does
this exactly!

Windows is designed around both the mouse and the keyboard, and the
guidelines for software developers are that anything you can do with
the mouse, you'd better be able to do without one too.  The
"accelerators" as they're called (keystroke equivalents) are labelled
right in the pull-down menus, so that you can easily learn a new
shortcut for an operation you do frequently without having to rummage
through the manual.  But it's no problem if you forget one you haven't
used in a while, because the menus are still there.  You can decide on
a moment by moment basis whether you feel like typing <alt>-f-s or
pulling down File menu and clicking Save, for instance.

Of course, Windows Write is pretty brain-damaged, and I'd only
recommend it for short memos and writing short stories at home!
I'm looking forward to the near future when I expect to see some
REAL word processors "Windowized" to act in the same way.

Andrea Frankel, Hewlett-Packard (San Diego Division) (619) 592-4664
                "...I brought you a paddle for your favorite canoe."
______________________________________________________________________________
UUCP     : {hplabs|nosc|hpfcla|ucsd}!hp-sdd!andrea 
Internet : andrea%hp-sdd@hp-sde.sde.hp.com 
                    (or @hplabs.hp.com, @nosc.mil, @ucsd.edu)
USnail   : 16399 W. Bernardo Drive, San Diego CA 92127-1899 USA

I work at dartmouth.  Dartmouth is known for having more macs on campus then
students.  I would rather have a PC AT then a mac II.

In article <8620@alice.UUCP> debra@alice.UUCP () writes:
>There are 2 problems:
>- moving the icon for a diskette to the trash can does not eject the
>  diskette completely, so even when I put a trash can in the right position
>  the diskette does not end up in the can :-)

It is possible to place something on top of something else, but not in it.
The Macintosh hilites the destination if you drag an object so that it
will go _in_ it.

>- moving the icon for the hard disk does not eject it. when i first wanted
>  to try this several of my colleagues got very upset and prevented me from
>  trying this :-)

This is a useful and harmless command.  It does "eject" the hard disk: it
makes it inaccessible until you re-boot.  It is useful before running
software that you don't want to know about your hard disk.  (Of course,
the system won't let you do this if you running off the hard disk. You
have to boot from a floppy before you can do this (or switch-launch to a
floppy.)

The drag-floppy-to-trashcan-to-eject is an idiom that developed over time.
New users don't get told the whole story, and they don't read the manual,
so they are distressed by this.  What is really going on is a shorthand
for two separate commands:

1.) Using "Eject" from the file menu.
2.) Dragging the ghost image of the deleted floppy to the trashcan,
because  we really don't want it taking up desktop space.

The old, two step process is still available, for the nervous, but it is
no longer _required_ as it was in the earliest releases of the Finder.

Experts, when you teach the mac, teach the old way first! (Sheesh, there
is no pleasing people. The novices want strict metaphors so they will know
how things will behave, and the experts want to reduce their hand motion
for frequently used operations.)

In article <267@daitc.daitc.mil> jkrueger@daitc.daitc.mil (Jonathan Krueger) writes:
>See Edward Tufte: The Visual Display of Quantitative Information.
>Good displays are well understood, and by Tufte, well described.
>
>It doesn't matter whether they're on screens or paper.

This is probably true in the context JK meant (I presume he was saying
"whether you display information on a screen or on paper you need to
know what you are doing").  But taken literally (as "screens and and
paper are similar media") it is misleading.


Some work done about ten years ago at RAND Corporation investigated the
use of "computer maps" (maps displayed on a display screen --a vector
display in their case).  One of the many issues looked at was how to
capitalize on the fact that a computer map can add or delete
information from the display interactively (which a paper map cannot)
while compensating for the problem of resolution and image quality
(where a good paper map easily beats a screen).  At least one RAND
report was produced on this work (Norm Shapiro was an author).

In article <3173@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) asks:

 > What object on the desktop are pull-down menus a metaphor for?

Have you never ordered a pizza, sub, or Chinese orgy while working
late at the office?

--Barry Kort

In article <851@mtfmi.att.com> mel@mtfmi.att.com (M.HAAS) writes:
>Perhaps we could start off with maps...
>
>[interesting argument deleted]
>
>...  Where are the computer
>equivalents of the double white line?  the "Exit 109, Red Bank" sign?
>the "Ramp Speed 25 mph" sign?  the "No U Turn" sign?  the "MacDonalds
>8 miles at Exit 13" sign?

Hmmm.  While the maps idea is good (given enough pixels and layers on the
screen -- look at a worthwhile map and be surprised by the print quality it
requires), mention of US-specific road markings and signs makes alarm bells
ring in my head.  Difficult though it may be, can the next metophor (as
opposed, perhaps, to the NeXT metaphor) be international in its
applicability?  The desk-top metaphor, as implemented in various guises,
does pretty well around the world -- even if the Roladex is not well-known
outside the US.  (Britain has its Filofax.  What does the rest of the
world use?)  Maps, too, have the potential to be non culture-specific --
provided that the implementors keep that goal in mind.
-- 
Dominic Dunlop
domo@sphinx.co.uk  domo@riddle.uucp

In article <4510@xenna.Encore.COM> bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) writes:
>
> Or is taking a little time to learn how to use a tool a
>dirty word?
>
>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.

For the record: I have a three-digit IQ, I love computers, and I routinely
operate a push-button phone. And I insist that my computer use a consistent
metaphor.

Yes, I have spent a considerable amount of time learning to use my Mac as
a tool. I routinely use a dozen or so applications, switching between them
frequently. I also use an uncounted number of other applications from time
to time. Frankly, I couldn't be bothered to learn (and try to remember)
a dozen or more arcane and inconsistent command languages. I use my Mac as a
tool, not as a means to demonstrate irrelevant feats of memory. I spend my
energy learning the craft of using each application, not the mechanics of
"power" features.

I do remember a few of the most-used command key equivalents on some of
the applications I use. But I use the menus for about 90% of the operations
I perform (about 10% of the time). This is mostly because use of command
key equivalents tend to be inconsistent between applications (shame on the
developers), and I don't want to even try to remember who did what how.

It is the metaphor (desktop, or whatever) supported by a computer which helps
to make applications consistent. It is that consistency which makes it
useful for a regular user to learn a large number of applications, or for
a casual user to learn any applications at all. Yes, anybody with a moderate
intelligence can learn to use ANY one application (or two). And yes, any
major application should include "power" features for those who care to
master them. Most do. But a metaphor is still essential to integrating the
computer as a whole into our lives.

By the way, I happen to think it's about time we find a stronger metaphor.
Most of the things we do on the Mac now don't relate all that well to the
desktop metaphor. We need something that can be developed more consistently
throughout all applications. (Sorry. I don't have any suggestions just now.)

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed above are my own. Don't blame anyone else.
-- 
=====================================================================
   Ed Anson,    Calcomp Display Products Division,    Hudson NH 03051
   (603) 885-8712,      anson@elrond.CalComp.COM

>Perhaps you're right that there needs to be some introduction to the Macintosh
>for new users.  But beyond that, there are many programs on the Mac that can
>be effectively used without any manual or training.

Yeesh! Every Macintosh sold since its introduction has included a guided tour
of the Macintosh. How to use the mouse and the basic concepts of its 
interface. They taught you how to use the mouse to select, click, double click
etc. They still do this! The only difference is that you don't get the 
cassette tape with the neat windham hill music in the background.

So hold off your bashing if you haven't been thru the guided tour! Apple wants
people to do the tour first to introduce the concepts. They have never claimed
you just boot up and go without EVER reading or doing ANYTHING to familiarize
oneself with the machine.

The power of the Mac interface is that IF a Mac application follows the 
interface guidelines it will act in a manner similar to other Mac applications
in performing the SAME functions (like opening a new file, saving, copying
pasting, printing or quitting!).  

David L. Williams
"Mac owner, Mac User, since 1984"

In article <3173@sugar.uu.net>, peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> Just being a troublemaker...
> What object on the desktop are pull-down menus a metaphor for?

The kleenex box. ("Honk! Snort!")

-- 
Kevin McBride         Another  //     | A cure for AIDS has been found.
Wang Laboratories      Proud  //      | They've given it a Yamaha part
Desktop Image Systems     \\ // Amiga | number so now noone can get it.
...!ima!wang7!klm          \X/  owner |       - Motorcyclist Magazine

In article <1489@umbc3.UMD.EDU> cs374326@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Peter Johansson) writes:
>We are running a network
>of roughly one dozen Mac ][s, connected to one mac ][ with a HD as a file
>server and print spooler.  The first big problem was that the system software
>(6.0) would crash several times daily. ... 
>......., I personally found I was spending
>*more* time trying to figure things out than I was actually doing work.

Stop and think now about how much -more- work was done on the Mac by the 
people that don't understand operating systems than they would have done
at the unix prompt.

>How much research has actually gone into discovering what Joe Schmoe,
>small and medium sized business owner, wants on his desk?  Does he want
>a gas-plasma-wall-hanging-display unit and an infra-red-input-device?

I have not done any research on the subject, but I sure would like to 
see a design system that allows me to display a full schematic page 
next to the simulation traces for that page. This would require a very 
large display. I vote yes. As for small businessmen, if the system also
includes a scanning and retrieval method, I'm sure they would get into
the same situation trying to compare two documents in windows too small
to show the documents full size.

>Addmitedly, this *is* comp.sys.next, and there aren't very many end users
>(of the NeXT machine) and in the near future I see no coporate use of the
>machine planed.  .......
>I'm also curious just what percentage of the end-user computing market
>the graphical interface has captured, and what their opinions of it are.

I think the reason that the accountants and lawyers and mail order entry
people don't use graphical interfaces is primarily cost. There is a lot 
of money to be made if you can design a good sized graphics display and 
an interface to it that allows large numbers of graphics terminals to run
on one central box. The programmer will always deliver his application 
in the least expensive manner. When the application becomes too complex
to deliver on a simple text screen, it is no longer cost effective to 
do so. 

If users have never seen a graphical interface or a pointer, they will
be happy to use what is available. The current problem with most graphics
interfaces stems from the fact that they are designed to work on 
workstations. Unless a network of workstations is less expensive
than a central computer and a less capable terminal, there is no market
for the graphics. Note that expensive here refers to total cost vs.
total productivity.

The unsophistocated user wants the graphics to be transparent and reliable.
He or she wants applications that help him do his job in a cost 
effective manner. Our job as hardware and software engineers is to 
figure out how to take the things that nature gives us and help these 
people do their jobs. Sometimes that is fun, and sometimes it isn't.

-- 
Mark Clauss  Hardware Engineering, NCR Wichita <Mark.Clauss@Wichita.NCR.COM>
 NCR:654-8120                              <{uunet}!ncrlnk!
(316)636-8120         <{ece-csc,hubcap,gould,rtech}!ncrcae!ncrwic!mark.clauss>
           <{sdcsvax,cbatt,dcdwest,nosc.ARPA,ihnp4}!ncr-sd!

-- 
Mark Clauss  Hardware Engineering, NCR Wichita <Mark.Clauss@Wichita.NCR.COM>
 NCR:654-8120                              <{uunet}!ncrlnk!
(316)636-8120         <{ece-csc,hubcap,gould,rtech}!ncrcae!ncrwic!mark.clauss>
           <{sdcsvax,cbatt,dcdwest,nosc.ARPA,ihnp4}!ncr-sd!

In article <2554@spray.CalComp.COM> anson@spray.UUCP (Ed Anson) writes:
 
<I do remember a few of the most-used command key equivalents on some of
<the applications I use. But I use the menus for about 90% of the operations
<I perform (about 10% of the time). This is mostly because use of command
<key equivalents tend to be inconsistent between applications (shame on the
<developers), and I don't want to even try to remember who did what how.

I was particularly pleased to see that Canvas 2.0 uses key commands very
much like Microsoft Word (e.g., Cmd-Shift-i for italic, b for bold, etc.
This makes it much easier, since text is a major part of my Canvas "drawings."

Shirley Kehr

This discussion started off strong but has deteriorated into
name-calling and story telling.  Not clear why anyone things there is
any single answer to the question of the appropriate interaction
technique: individual differences and individual preferences are
strong and relevant, and should always be respected.

But I have to put my 2 cents in again and ask why some of you want to
leave out half of the world's population?   Certainly you wouldn't
design computer systems only for women and leave out men, so why leave
out 2 digit IQs?

The quote I am referring to is this:
 >There seems to be a fascination in this field with catering to some
 >mythical person with a two-digit IQ ...

Half the world has 2-digit IQs. Another way of putting it is that half
of the world is below average.

The IQ tests are designed so that the mean IQ is 100.

don norman

Donald A. Norman	[ danorman@ucsd.edu   BITNET: danorman@ucsd ]
Department of Cognitive Science C-015
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, California 92093 USA

UNIX:  {gatech,rutgers,ucbvax,uunet}!ucsd!danorman
[e-mail paths often fail: please give postal address and all e-mail addresses.]

In article <1805@hp-sdd.HP.COM> andrea@hp-sdd.UUCP (Andrea K. Frankel) writes:
>
>In article <4455@Portia.Stanford.EDU> rdsesq@Jessica.stanford.edu (Rob Snevely) writes:
>>The issue is not ease of use, the issue is how effectively a person can
>>use a program as a tool to make his/her life or job better or easier.
>>The mac does have 1 advantage over emacs or wordstar, it is easier for a 
>>new user to get up and running. However, once that user is up and running,
>>the interface can slow down there speed and productivity. 
>
>I agree entirely.  This is why I DON'T like the Mac for heavy use,
>although I appreciate it for certain graphics operations.

I don't agree. The advantage is that a user may have a much larger collection
of programs that he uses infrequently. A program you use every day can be
non intutive and illogical and hard to learn. That is no problem once you
have learned it. The utilities that you use once a year is another matter.

Just take a look at the Mac programs around. There are a number of easy-
to-use-utilities, simple beginners programs like MacWrite, but for the
professionals, there are things like MSWord and others that has a lot
of features and requires a manual. There is a MacTex, too.
There are easy programming environments like Turbo Pascal and
Lightspeed C/Pascal, but for the more heavy-duty programming there is also
MPW, a UNIX-like environment with pipes, scripts and text interface.

This entire debate about the Mac-type interfaces is rather boring.
Why don't you people who have never used a Mac stop suggesting
improvements that have already been made? Can we please skip the "my *
is best because I use it"-garbage? (Replace * with any computer, OS,
program, car etc.)

OK, back to business.

An idea that has been mentioned (by Stephen Baumgarten) is to have
some kind of text interface apart from MPW, which is large and expensive.
I believe that there would be some points:
- The possibility to use some kind of pipes and scripts.
- The possibility to connect a VT100-style terminal to one of the Mac's
serial ports in order to allow one person to do strict text work without
taking the Mac away from the person who wants to do some layout or
drawings, and without having to buy UNIX (A/UX).
   One could do this as a DA (or application, when everybody really has
switched to MultiFinder) which puts up a little window for command lines.
   The point is that it should not be an alternative to the desktop, like MPW,
but a complement. The commands should preferrably be files with code resources
with a special type (since I guess that APPL would be inappropriate just like
for the MPW tools), and searched for through a path.
Call it reinventing MPW or writing a shell, whatever you like. It could
be useful. Maybe. What do you think?
(Suggested name: MacNeanderthal :-))


OK, back to the flames...
(FLAME ON)

>>So I propose both,
>>why cant we have a word processor that has two interfaces. A "user-friendly"
>>pull down menu -- dialog based interface for new users. and a command
>>oriented interface for advanced users. This would allow those users who
>>want or need a command oriented interface access to it while allowing
>>new or intermediate users to have the point and click. Also since the
>>menu interface would be around all the time, it would help to eliminate
>>the problems of going from on to the other cause they are interchangable.
>
>Check out Windows Write (bundled with Microsoft Windows).  It does
>this exactly!
>
>Windows is designed around both the mouse and the keyboard, and the
>guidelines for software developers are that anything you can do with
>the mouse, you'd better be able to do without one too.  The
>"accelerators" as they're called (keystroke equivalents) are labelled
>right in the pull-down menus, so that you can easily learn a new
>shortcut for an operation you do frequently without having to rummage
>through the manual.  But it's no problem if you forget one you haven't
>used in a while, because the menus are still there.  You can decide on
>a moment by moment basis whether you feel like typing <alt>-f-s or
>pulling down File menu and clicking Save, for instance.
>
>Of course, Windows Write is pretty brain-damaged, and I'd only
>recommend it for short memos and writing short stories at home!
>I'm looking forward to the near future when I expect to see some
>REAL word processors "Windowized" to act in the same way.

>Andrea Frankel, Hewlett-Packard (San Diego Division) (619) 592-4664

This is ridicolous! Just replace "Windows Write" with "MacWrite" and
"Windows" with "Mac Toolbox" and every word is true, except for the
last sentence - the real word processors arrived long ago! Are you sure this
article isn't a mutation of some Mac article from -84?

In particular, a Mac program that is supposed to be used regularly
should *never* force the user to walk through a lot of menus and/or
dialogs for anything but the most unfrequent operations! To me, the menus
are a kind of short on-line manuals.

In my work, I use Mac and Sun, and SunTools doesn't seem to use key
equivalents as a standard. (It is nice in other respects, though.)


/Ingemar Ragnemalm
-- 
Dept. of Electrical Engineering	     ...!uunet!mcvax!enea!rainier!ingemar
                  ..
University of Linkoping, Sweden	     ingemar@isy.liu.se

In article <27265@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (David Phillip Oster) writes:
>She also composes, using a music-score processor. she uses the mouse in
>one hand to place notes on staves, and the keyboard under the other to
>select which kind of note the mouse will leave.  
Why not use a real piano-style keyboard for this?  It's hard to get more
natural, unless you have no piano experience.  or a MIDI guitar, or
anything MIDI interfaceable that you can easily attach to most
computers.  For editing, it should be sufficient to point at the
note with the mouse and change it.
-- 
					- Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.
Internet: ralphw@{ius{3,2,1}.,}cs.cmu.edu    Phone:(412) CMU-BUGS
Amateur Packet Radio: N3FGW@W2XO, or c/o W3VC, CMU Radio Club, Pittsburgh, PA
"You can do what you want with my computer, but leave me alone!8-)"
-- 

norman@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Donald A Norman-UCSD Cog Sci Dept) writes:


>...Moving the disk image into the trash can to ejectthe disk
>is a violation that bothers many people at first usage, but seems
>perfectly natural after just one or two uses...

Well this STILL bothers me. I feel extremely unsafe doing this and indeed have
witnessed people totally delete a folder because they forgot it wasn't a disk!

Less drastic but still annoying in the Mac desktop metaphor is that moving
a file from one folder to another sometimes copies it and other times moves
it. This one just requires a little thought before doing it but the whole
point about a spatial interface is that it isn't supposed to require any
thought (like driving a car).

While we're on the subject I have always thought that use of the word 'metaphor'
to describe the Mac interface is somewhat pretentious. As several people
have pointed out it actually resembles a desktop very little. It is just a
spatial interface to a computer. Some of us find this type of interface
easier to learn and use than textual interfaces. This is because humans
have evolved to handle largely spatial problems, text (and abstraction) are
relative newcomers to the scene. That said, I have met people who claim to
think of things in a textual fashion rather than a spatial one. To use a
metaphor (!) how do you navigate when driving? Do you remember street and
place names or do you remember a location and how to get there from here?

I would be very interested to know if anyone has gathered any statistics on
this sort of thing.

- Paul.

In article <223@torch.UUCP> paul@torch.UUCP (Paul Andrews) writes:
> [Stuff deleted]
>Less drastic but still annoying in the Mac desktop metaphor is that moving
>a file from one folder to another sometimes copies it and other times moves
>it.

Yeah.  I despair that people still come up with file heirarchies where you
can see physical disks (or things which pretend to be them) for no good
reason.  If the thing's removable then, yes, there's a reason for making
the joins visible, but if it's part of the furniture (even of furniture set
up by some administrative function before you enter the room -- woops,
sorry, wrong metaphor) I maintain it should be seamless.  The UNIX
analogue to moving a file between folders is the mv command.  This indeed
sometimes has to copy the file from one physical device to another behind
the scenes.  But it never results in there being two copies of a file
where before there was only one.  I suppose it could do, but to do so
would be inconsistent with UNIX' metaphor of an hierarchical file system
that is as seamless as possible.  You really want a copy?  OK.  Use cp. 
(Yes, yes, I know that you can get bit if you try to use the other alias
for mv, ln, across physical devices -- sorry if you were expecting
perfection.)

I guess life could be worse: the Mac disks might be called A:, B:...
(Probably one of Digital's better ideas for the 1960s.  Just a pity that
twenty million users are still living with it because CP/M appropriated it
in the 1970s.)
-- 
Dominic Dunlop
domo@sphinx.co.uk  domo@riddle.uucp

There's one problem with the "seamless filesystem" as exhibited by
Unix, and that is that there are sometimes instances when you really
do want the seams.  Specifically, I've had instances on Unix where I
was building/maintaining a parallel filesystem to the boot filesystem
and I would have killed to have the function of A:, B: (although I
would have used somewhat more imaginative names).  In other words, it
would have been nice if I could have done:
	% cp -r /b/*foo* mnt:
to copy all files and directories from /b/*foo* to corresponding names
on the filesystem that would result if the system was booted from the
device labelled mnt:.  I eventually decided that the easiest way to do
what I wanted was to tar it, cd to the desired base directory, and to
un-tar.

It isn't necessarily the best solution to allow a co-equal mounting at
the root with parallel access based on a syntax such as ":" (although
this is undeniably a way to do this).  I would rather have something
that lets you substitute all or part of the current tree path inside
some other part of that path.

I agree that forcing co-equal moutning at the root based upon a device
boundary is a loss.

In article <973@riddle.UUCP> domo@riddle.UUCP (Dominic Dunlop) writes:
#sorry, wrong metaphor) I maintain it should be seamless.  The UNIX
#analogue to moving a file between folders is the mv command.  This indeed
#sometimes has to copy the file from one physical device to another behind
#the scenes.  But it never results in there being two copies of a file
#where before there was only one.  I suppose it could do, but to do so
#would be inconsistent with UNIX' metaphor of an hierarchical file system
#that is as seamless as possible.  You really want a copy?  OK.  Use cp. 
#(Yes, yes, I know that you can get bit if you try to use the other alias
#for mv, ln, across physical devices -- sorry if you were expecting
#perfection.)

Ah but isn't copying an Inherent function that is importantly different
from the idea of "moving"?  I think it would be VERY nice if you could
simply turn the pointer into something and VOILA', you pull out "copies"
and set them whereever the heck you please to.  If they are on the same
disk let em be!  It would be nice if the mac could work up its own
scheme for "backup" and leave symbolic duplication for us to play with.

The idea of "moving/dragging" is overloaded with that of copying.  This
is a hole in the paradigm that the mouse provides.  I still think that putting
a "copy" to the printer would be a VERY appropriate and intuitive idea, unless
the printer is a xerox machine which takes it and hands it back to you.  

There are LOTS of VERY logical and intuitive ways to use the mouse-as-hand
paradigm.  I personally think that nearly NONE of the system stuff should be
left to the user.  (i.e. if you take a file to the trash, warn you if its the
ONLY "link" left because the system knows where it keeps its duplicates.  Maybe
even make a FORMAL diff-format for each application and use that as a 
compacted version of "duplication/modification".

Anyone got any ideas one how to show pipes?  How about having a palatte or 
something made up from pull-down/over/across/out panels and "snapping"
their icons together?  How about putting files on either end?  Putting
it in the background by closing up *all* the outlets, or finding a place
to put them that would allow them (something like standard error could
have a window to spooge in).  In this case a window is ONLY a way
of "opening" a file and the format coming out from a pipeline could
determine what kind of window stuff gets put in (graphics, text, readouts etc..)

I think that there are only too many ideas that people haven't thought about
that *AREN'T* just cute (like moving/bouncing windows!!) but are utile and
finding *specifically* what the problems are with using the more promising ones.

I notice that too few people talk about the *exact* problems they have with
stuff except for the good old keyboard/mouse stuff.  These are certainly
valid areas to pursue.

#I guess life could be worse: the Mac disks might be called A:, B:...
#(Probably one of Digital's better ideas for the 1960s.  Just a pity that
#twenty million users are still living with it because CP/M appropriated it
#in the 1970s.)

I DO hate it when that happens.

#-- 
#Dominic Dunlop
#domo@sphinx.co.uk  domo@riddle.uucp

### C>H> ###

	You can do this with UNIX (at least Berkeley UNIX, don't use SissyV
much around here).  There is a system call called "chroot" that allows you to
set a place in the file system as the root of the file system.  When we were
running Ultrix and needed to run things in a 4.3 environment we justed used
a program called "root43".  It isn't quite as convenient as A:, B: but it is
more powerful in that you can use an arbitrary directory as the new root.

James Conley
Indiana University Computer Science
jec@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu