Xref: utzoo comp.windows.x.motif:2372 comp.windows.open-look:1072 comp.windows.x:34701 comp.windows.misc:1911 comp.unix.misc:1231 news.misc:6390
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!utoday!info
From: argon.eng.sun.com!db@uunet.UU.NET (David Brownell)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x.motif,comp.windows.open-look,comp.windows.x,comp.windows.misc,comp.unix.misc,news.misc
Subject: Re: Question for net.views column in UNIX Today!
Message-ID: <9104010841.AA09681@argon.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 1 Apr 91 08:41:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: argon.9104010841.AA09681
Sender: info@utoday.com (UNIX Today!)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 25
To: netviews@utoday.UUCP
In-Reply-To: <1991Mar29.195953.2421@utoday.com>

In article <1991Mar29.195953.2421@utoday.com> you write:
> 
> 	*******************
> 	*   QUESTION #2	  *
> 	*******************
> 
> 	Is a single GUI standard really necessary?

NO.

What's important is to have the core techniques that affect new
or infrequent users be substantially similar, enough so that the
simple applications seem to need little or no learning.  Complex
applications will always need some training, and will always go
past the boundaries of what any contemporary GUI standard knows
how to deal with well.

The lesson of the Mac is widely misinterpreted.  It's not that
a single GUI solves usability problems.  Rather, it's that having
consistency among core UI features is a big win for non-experts.
That consistency can easily come without a "single" standard.

- Dave Brownell
  (415) 336-1615
  (508) 671-0348