Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!israel From: israel@umcp-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.cog-eng Subject: Re: expert-friendly: are long names a waste of time? Message-ID: <4276@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Wed, 7-Dec-83 01:24:30 EST Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.4276 Posted: Wed Dec 7 01:24:30 1983 Date-Received: Fri, 9-Dec-83 05:40:31 EST References: <4251@umcp-cs.UUCP> <232@denelcor.UUCP> Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept. Lines: 63 From: neal@denelcor.UUCP Has anyone else used a console on a CDC-6XXX or Cyber? They use an interesting and useful (in my opinion) algorithm. For each letter you type: [ Algorithm paraphrased for brevity ] Complete as much as can be completed automatically, on a character by character basis, and ignore any illegal chars. I don't know if I like this scheme (though I've never used it, and that's the real test of whether I would like it!) because of the following situation. Basic assumption: command names are long (if they weren't this'd be a pretty ridiculous algorithm to bother using). Say I'm a casual or even expert user and I know the commands. I want to compile my pascal program with 'compile_pascal_program'. I would be more likely as a reasonably fast touch typist to try typing the whole command. So I type the 'c'. Since the only commands beginning with 'c' are 'compile_*', it fills in the 'ompile_' and waits for me to continue. I type the 'o' which it ignores, and then when I type the 'm', it automatically completes out to 'compile_modula_program'. A possible habit to build to fix this situation (while retaining fast command typing) might be for expert users to remember where it automatically completes and type the exact string which completes to what they want. For example, an expert might type in 'CPA' with the command looking something like 'Compile_PAscal_program'. This case is no better than the short mnemonics, since it is obviously equivalent. Also, I think you end up remembering two commands (the long version and the short version) instead of one. Another point is that any time a new command gets added to the system the completion map changes. I think that this scheme can be very handy for novice users (but still does not really answer the problem being discussed, since the novices don't know the command names to begin with, unless the naming convention is extremely regular), but not very comfortable for casual or expert users. It could become useful for experts only if the system was so fast that it had effectively instaneous completion time. If the user ever has to wait more than the time it takes him to type the next key, it would probably be more bothersome than anything else. How about some feedback? Did you use it much and what level user were you? Any people out there who have used the above systems on an expert level? (By the way, the above opinions on the effects of such a system are totally my own and are not meant to represent my department, the University of Maryland, the state of Md, the USA, North America, the Earth, this Solar system, this universe, or any other entities of which I may be a part :-) ) -- ^-^ Bruce ^-^ University of Maryland, Computer Science {rlgvax,seismo}!umcp-cs!israel (Usenet) israel.umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay (Arpanet)