Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!seismo!caip!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!ihnp4!drutx!druhi!lbl
From: lbl@druhi.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: ST, Verrrrry Close...
Message-ID: <650@druhi.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Jul-86 13:58:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: druhi.650
Posted: Mon Jul 14 13:58:01 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 15-Jul-86 05:01:25 EDT
References: <2130@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Organization: AT&T Information System Labs, Denver, Co
Lines: 26
Summary: not GEM - just bad programming!

In article <2130@brl-smoke.ARPA>, MADSON@SRI-KL.arpa writes:
> I agree that the ST provides great performance for the buck.  However, the GEM
> user interface leaves a lot to be desired.  A small example:  upon exiting a 
> file, a box appears with a STOP sign and words to the effect: "...If you wish 
> to save your work, please Cancel now and do so.", followed by two 'buttons':
> "OK" and "CANCEL".  The agreeable user clicks "OK" and returns to the 'desktop'
> without saving.
>   Granted, this probably only has to happen once.  Even so, such a weak inter-
> face limits the machine's usefulness for many users.  The Amiga is yet another
	other comments edited out
> 
> 					--carl madson
> 					

Carl,

This example is really a case of bad program design by the author of whatever
program you (or you dad) were running.  GEM will allow you to put whatever text
that you (the programmer) wish to in the exit buttons.  In this case the buttons
should have been more unambiguous choices such as "EXIT" and "RETURN".  Obviously,
the explanatory text should be changed also.

Please note that I don't think GEM is perfect - far from it!  I just wanted to set
the record straight as to who was at fault in the above example.  

Barry Locklear