Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: GRZ027%DBNGMD21.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Peter Sylvester +49 228 8199645)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: Printable format (was: Re:  ISO/CCITT meeting report)
Message-ID: <"90-08-15-16:06:23.73*GRZ027"@DBNGMD21.BITNET>
Date: 15 Aug 90 14:09:57 GMT
References: <9008132356.AA16616(a)bel.isi.edu>
Lines: 33
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <406086*JPALME@QZ.QZ.SE>

> So the human factors study did find that the best combination
> was to have a ***different*** format on the business card
> and in the user interface!!

I would interprete this result in a different way:
Gargabe in, arbitary results out.


If a "huge" form fill in user interface is necessary
to enter addresses in an acceptable way then this means that
something is wrong with the addressing structure at all.

The most complicated part on a busisness card is the postal
address with about 6 times 30 characters. As long as e-mail
postal delivery as a model (but without all the nice human
heuristics) you at least the same space for email addresses on
business cards, and this is "not reasonable".

What would people say if the telephone business would be changed:
From now one telephones will get a keyboard and instead of a telephone
number you have to type in the directory name of a user like
Freiherr von M"unchhausen SchloB Birlinghoven Sankt Augustin
Bundesrepublik Deutschland ....

Or: Tell a user that FAX is changed now. You do not longer dial the
telephone number of the recipient but you have to enter a long
X.400 address.


Is there someone who can reach the last wagon of the train
leaving the station?

Peter Sylvester GMD Bonn