Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!rutgers!njin!njitgw.njit.edu!hertz.njit.edu!ken From: ken@hertz.njit.edu (ken ng cccc) Newsgroups: comp.editors Subject: Re: What do writers want from a word processor? Summary: I want STUFF! NOT FLUFF! Message-ID: <1991Apr30.205205.6328@njitgw.njit.edu> Date: 30 Apr 91 20:52:05 GMT References: <1991Apr22.145525.10150@njitgw.njit.edu> <3097@wn1.sci.kun.nl> Sender: news@njit.edu Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J. Lines: 63 Nntp-Posting-Host: hertz.njit.edu In article <3097@wn1.sci.kun.nl> hansm@cs.kun.nl (Hans Mulder) writes: :In <1991Apr22.145525.10150@njitgw.njit.edu> ken@hertz.njit.edu (ken ng cccc) writes: :>I would say that some of the things I would want are functionality, :>consistency, customizing, and performance (gee, doesn't everyone?). :Some people argue vehemently *against* customizing, claiming that :(2) If the user can't reconfigure it, the designer must spend quite some : time finding the optimal configuration (before hard coding it). : Packages that you can endlessly customize tend to come with a lousy : configuration and the claim that the user is going to reconfigure : it anyway. In my opinion, the ability to customize is NO EXCUSE for bad defaults. That's like selling a car with adjustable brakes with the default set to NO brakes! :(3) You can't help other users if their Preferences file is too different : from yours, and they can't help you. Sure you can, have them send you their conf files and you try it out. BESIDES, if you are helping other users with YOUR product, YOU SHOULD KNOW what it should do under ANY circumstance. :And then there are all sorts of trade-offs. Sometimes, I'm willing to :sacrifice some functionality if it buys me performance. Sometimes I'm :willing to sacrifice consistency if it buys me functionality. For :instance, vi's regexp syntax is pretty inconsistent, but I wouldn't :want to miss the functionality. Oh, and there is one *BIG* peeve I've had more and more in recent years: Making the application "pretty" as opposed to functional. One VERY disturbing trend that I have seen in recent years is to make the application pretty as opposed to functional. For example: one application simulates a Roladex. Ok, that is fine, give the user a conventional frame of reference. And I noticed all the pretty graphics of getting the various pages of the Roladex to prettily scroll by as it goes to the requested person. And I noticed the extreme detail to the EXACT outline of a Roladex card, including the two notches cut in the bottom of the card image. Oh boy, very pretty. Let's try to search, I can search by last name, ok. By why can't I search by first name? Or by phone number? Or by address? Or by name fragment? Or by state or zip code? Oh, because on a REAL Roladex you can't! So I guess the author's motivation is to not only use a Roladex as a model for the program, but he chose TO LIMIT YOU TO WHAT YOU CAN DO ON A REAL ROLADEX!!!! (So what the hell is the use of the bloody computer!?!?!?!?!) (FLAME MODE ON) Gee, if I REALLY wanted to simulate the action of a REAL Roladex, why don't the corners slowly wear down and wear off? Why don't cards start sticking out so that I have to push them back in with the mouse? Why doesn't it simulate fellow workers removing entries without telling you? A real Roladex shouldn't even let me edit the entries, I should be forced to draw a line through the old entries and scribble the new entry in the border! (FLAME MODE OFF) Frankly, I do better with the old fashioned Kedit text editor and a flat file containing all my names and addresses. Am I the only one who wants computers to do more work as opposed to look pretty? Kenneth Ng "No problem, this is how you make it" -- R. Barclay, ST: TNG