🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3530@reed.UUCP> chrism@reed.UUCP (Chris McKnight) writes:
>This is great that they at least are documented somewhere, but that really
>makes no difference.  Much of the appeal of the Macintosh (it's biggest
>selling point, in my opinion) IS THAT YOU DON'T NEED TO READ A BIG MANUAL
>TO USE EACH PROGRAM.  I don't want to have to dig through manuals to figure
>out how to do things.  With shortcuts implemented in a non-intuitive way
>that requires reference to a manual to use them, the Mac loses one of the
>key characteristics that renders it superior to IBM style machines--it's
>intuitive, friendly nature.

How silly. You still don't have to read a manual. You just can't use the
shortcuts. Macintosh's friendly user interface is still there.

I find both the options presented here to be silly (actually one option
phrased two ways):

	1. Don't allow any operation in any program or finder if it isn't
	a menu option.

	2. Make all operations menu options.


The first penalizes those who are willing to read the manual in search of 
possible shortcuts. 

The second could make menus large and unwieldy enough to discourage users.

Remember that the 'user friendly system' only provides an environment
where productive effort can be generated with a minimum of learning time
spent. If it promised that additional learning time gained no additional
productivity gains I wouldn't be using it now. THAT option reminds me of
many menu operated tools of one sort or another which by making the 
performance of a job so easy that anyone could do it, made the possibility of
using the tool for anything above the original design intent impossible.

Ever try to use a dedicated word processor for anything else?


-- 
 Jim Budler
 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
 (408) 749-5806
 Usenet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!jimb
 Compuserve:	72415,1200