Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!rutgers!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!ur-tut!tuba From: tuba@ur-tut.UUCP (Jon Krueger) Newsgroups: net.micro.mac,net.unix Subject: Re: Modelessness (Was porting UNIX applications to the mac) Message-ID: <772@ur-tut.UUCP> Date: Mon, 13-Oct-86 14:23:07 EDT Article-I.D.: ur-tut.772 Posted: Mon Oct 13 14:23:07 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 14-Oct-86 06:12:52 EDT References: <1572@cbdkc1.UUCP> <1091@hoptoad.uucp> <1897@utecfa.UUCP> <585@zeus.UUCP> <2637@cbosgd.ATT.COM> Reply-To: tuba@ur-tut.UUCP (Jon Krueger) Organization: Univ. of Rochester Computing Center Lines: 45 Xref: watmath net.micro.mac:8281 net.unix:9562 In article <585@zeus.UUCP> bobr@zeus.UUCP (Robert Reed) writes: > A useful definition of mode is a state of a user interface that affects > the interpretation of subsequent inputs without obvious indication. I'll rewrite this: A mode is a system state. The same user inputs in different modes get different system responses. Or: Users input to systems. Systems respond to users. A mode is a set of pairs of user inputs and their corresponding system responses. User inputs in the same mode get the same responses. User inputs in different modes may get different responses. I'm aiming toward a definition that's sufficiently general to apply to a variety of systems, devices, interfaces, and applications. Whether and how obviously a system indicates its mode is a testable matter. If the user behaves differently when the system indicates its mode, we can call the indication obvious. If the user behaves the same in the presence of an mode indication as in its absence, then the indication wasn't obvious. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, in that case the system didn't indicate a mode. I hope this kind of discussion is boring and dry enough to calm down the vi versus mouse flames. We're getting more heat than light. It's more useful to gain consensus on matters as basic as how to apply terms to objects. Hence I offer my use of the term "mode". But actually I have little interest in it, I'd rather see a useful definition of the terms: "sucessful user behavior" "effective use" "productive use" and so on. My definitions lack precision and vigor. I'd have to say something like "needs little reference to printed documentation or human consultants" or "minimal time to first satisfactory result" or "user jumps up and down and says he likes it" or "user rushes out and buys ten more of it". These are pretty imprecise, although demonstrably better than "I like it and I think everyone should like it" or "it's just obviously better than its competitors" or "what's wrong with it? Everyone uses it here all the time". -- jon -- --> Jon Krueger uucp: {seismo, bullwinkle, allegra, decvax, harvard}!rochester!ur-tut!tuba Phone: (716) 275-2811 work, 235-1495 home BITNET: TUBA@UORDBV Drop in next time you're in the tri-planet area!