Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!bloom-beacon!unify.UUCP!kestrel.raveling
From: kestrel.raveling@unify.UUCP (Paul Raveling)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: STOP
Message-ID: <9007041718.AA01901@kestrel.>
Date: 4 Jul 90 17:18:23 GMT
References: <9007040700.AA10468@gumby.ocs.COM>
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 29

> 
> The OpenLook vs. Motif debate is degenerating into a religious war.  What
> would REALLY be helpful (IMHO) is some lively debate on how to use OpenLook,
> or Motif, or whatever, to write a good user-interface.  A consistent
> look-and-feel or a nifty toolkit doesn't guarantee that a user-interface will
> be easy to use.  And that's the whole point, isn't it?

	Not entirely.  One of my greatest concerns is that when
	we develop standards we often nail ourselves to the trailing
	edge of technology, and we pay for it forever.  User interfaces
	are the #2 spot I'd name where the quality of the tool
	has the most leverage on its users' productivity -- we have
	potentially lots to gain and risk having lots to lose.

	#1 on the leverage list is operating systems, where we're
	pretty well stuck with 1970 technology.  Some of us have
	been looking back for years and saying "we could have and
	should have done that better -- it's costing us plenty in
	software engineering time".

	The same is already true to some extent for X, but the X11
	standard will probably also be with us forever.  At least
	with OpenLook and Motif a choice is available between two
	competitors; we'd do well to choose wisely.


------------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@unify.com