Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!stanford.edu!unix!ctnews!pyramid!athertn!hemlock!mcgregor
From: mcgregor@hemlock.Atherton.COM (Scott McGregor)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: Individual Differences
Message-ID: <35567@athertn.Atherton.COM>
Date: 25 Jun 91 00:12:34 GMT
References: <1063@DIALix.oz.au> <80905@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>
Sender: news@athertn.Atherton.COM
Reply-To: mcgregor@hemlock.Atherton.COM (Scott McGregor)
Organization: Atherton Technology -- Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 18

In article <1063@DIALix.oz.au>, dent@DIALix.oz.au (Andrew Dent) writes:

> Without testing this kind of environment you run the risk of comparing the
> "athletes" of the CLI against the "joggers" of Direct Manipulation.

Excellent point.  I have seen many people try to argue that a CLI is
better for a particular task than a GUI.  On the face, this argument is
absurd, since there is no requirement that a GUI not accept typed
commands as well as mouse moves, clicks, drags and drops.  While many
GUIs today IGNORE character input when and where they are expecting
mouse interactions--they do not have to, and many interesting UIs get
the benefits of both merely by raising a hidden CLI window whenever
unexpected text input is typed. A pure CLI can therefore be seen as
merely a degenerate case of a GUI that does nothing with its WIMP capabilities!

Scott McGregor
Atherton Technology
mcgregor@atherton.com