Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!well!gurgle
From: gurgle@well.sf.ca.us (Pete Gontier)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: "The dialog manager is not a user interface" -Well, why not?
Message-ID: <24907@well.sf.ca.us>
Date: 21 May 91 02:14:59 GMT
References: <1777@babcock.cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu> <13367@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
Organization: cellular
Lines: 33

osborn@ux1.lbl.gov (James R Osborn) writes:
>In article <1777@babcock.cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu> un020070@vaxa.wvnet.edu writes:
>>--If there is something wrong with doing unusual things with dialogs,
>>then why were userItems and filter functions created to start with?

Hee hee. Because Microsoft wanted that stuff. 'nuff said.

>I do indeed concur whole-heartedly with all of your sentiments...

Me too.

What's most important to remember about that tech note is the intent,
periodically summarized in the cute generalizations at the head of each
sub-topic. It's true that the dialog manager is not an interface. I
can think of at least two general reasons which for this which aren't
obvious from the tech note.
   1) The dialog manager might encourage modality. This is mostly an
intuition on my part. But if dialog-ing is too easy, it will be too
tempting to fall back on it instead of designing a proper modeless
environment.
   2) The dialog manager, though extensible, has some, I'll say,
"encouraged" limits. You might be encouraged to design a lame
interface using existing controls and items, simply because it's
so easy to do rather than sticking in an item draw proc and an
event filter and thus and so.
   Granted, these two points assume you aren't being extra vigilant,
as all UI designers should be. And they pretty much assume, as well,
that you're capable of allowing yourself to make make silly design
mistakes. But I've seen more than one program from an otherwise
good designer use the dialog manager where it shouldn't.
-- 
 Pete Gontier, gurgle@well.sf.ca.us
 Software Imagineer, Kiwi Software, Inc.