Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!milton!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!ucbvax!ANDREW.CMU.EDU!maria+
From: maria+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU ("Maria G. Wadlow")
Newsgroups: comp.soft-sys.andrew
Subject: Re: Lost styles when cutting&pasting
Message-ID: <8ag_m2C00VsUA1Imk2@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 27 Jul 90 21:05:06 GMT
References: <9007270103.AA04111@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 32

Excerpts from mail: 26-Jul-90 Re: Lost styles when cuttin.. Sean
McLinden@dsl.pitt.e (2404)

> Disagree (respectfully). Design should, after all, follow user needs
> if you are developing user tools (the customer is always right). If the
> model doesn't fit the application, you don't necessarily tell the
> applications developer that he doesn't have a problem because you don't
> have a solution. You can't have consistency if you make every design
> choice a matter of user preference, but you can design a flexible model
> that supports other ways of looking at things.


I don't disagree with this statement.  Quoting my statement in an
earlier message:

Excerpts from internet.info-andrew: 26-Jul-90 Re: Lost styles when
cuttin.. Maria G. Wadlow (1551+0)

> Given the choices that were made and the paradigms that exist in the
> system now, I don't believe that the suggested change would be
> consistent with the mental model we are trying to espouse.


I am not arguing that the current paradigm is the correct or best or
most flexible one, just that it is the one we currently use.  If you
suggest changing the current paradigm to one that supports the
functionality being discussed, that's one thing (though I am certainly
not signing up to do it).  But I don't believe that adding options
without regard to maintaining consistency with the current system is in
the best interest of the user.

			Maria