Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!ernie.Berkeley.EDU!munson
From: munson@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Ethan Munson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Better Windows? (LONG) (Even longer now)
Message-ID: <18881@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Wed, 13-May-87 16:48:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.18881
Posted: Wed May 13 16:48:18 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 16-May-87 06:41:49 EDT
References: <565@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: munson@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Ethan Munson)
Distribution: world
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 108
Keywords: Windows User Interface
Xref: mnetor comp.sys.amiga:4786 comp.sys.mac:3113 comp.sys.atari.st:3426

In article <565@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> chekmate@artemis.UUCP (Adam Kao) writes:
>I've been thinking for a long time about the ideal user interface on a
>graphics-intensive computer.  The window and icon system popularized
>on the Mac seems to me a step in the right direction, but I still have
>reservations.  Some of my major concerns:
>	- most icon systems put too much emphasis on graphics for my
>	  taste.  Text has it's own special advantages:
>		- input speed (if you're a touch typist)
>		- output speed
>		- flexibility (e.g. moving around a tree directory structure)
>	  I'm not saying text is king; I just think we need some balance.

You have a good point here.  For experienced users, a mouse-intensive
interface can be a pain.  The reasonable solution is to have most
operations, or at least the most common, available at both the mouse and
the keyboard.  It is important to recognize that keyboard-oriented
commands are not so good for novice or irregular users, who forget
command names and syntax and don't even have a very good feel for what
it is they are trying to do.  The graphic orientation makes it a lot
easier to get people to actually use their computers.  Us pros are
another matter.  We understand our machines very well and, frankly, a
user-hostile environment may be better for us, at least in terms of raw
productivity on well-practiced tasks.

>	- the windowing concept doesn't seem to be efficient; there
>	  are lots of things the user can do that he doesn't need, and
>	  these extra features take a lot of compute power.  I'm sure
>	  we've all seen novice users spend half an hour resizing windows
>	  and shuffling them around.

I think you're missing the point.  For most of the tasks that PCs are
used for, a 68000 clocked at 8MHz with a text/command-line OS (like
MS/DOS would be) is a ridiculous waste of compute power.  The reason
that it is acceptable to have a windowing system on these machines is
that there is a lot of excess computing power available in the machine
and you might as well use it to make the machine more pleasant to the
user.  You would never consider using a real window interface on a basic
IBM PC because the chip/architecture just doesn't have the stuff to
support it (MS Windows, nowithstanding).  You shouldn't worry about the
inefficiency of supporting a fancy graphic interface because these
machines are not intended for computationally intensive tasks.  Rather,
you should worry about making the machine attractive to use for those
tasks that used to be done by hand (producing charts, filing data,
typing, bookkeeping).

>		- What use is a window that is half-hidden?  Why would
>		  anyone want to see only the left half of a document?
>		  If the right half is unnecessary, why show the
>		  document at all?  Microsoft's tiling system doesn't
>		  have this problem, but it isn't intuitive enough.

The reason for overlapping windows is that few of us can afford 18" by
18" screens.  Windows are a graphic analogy to multitasking, even though,
of the machines being discussed, only the Amiga is multitasked.  A window
that is largely obscured may not show you its results, but it does
remind you that it is there and only a mouse click away from being the focus
of your attention (and the computer's).  The problem with tiling is that
almost no matter how large your screen is, some of the tiles will be too
small for the information they display.  I prefer overlap because I can
get each window to be the right size and then shift between windows as
needed.  Even on a Sun 3 I find myself overlapping windows because the
smallest type size that doesn't give me eyestrain takes over half the
width of the screen in an 80 column window.

>		- Do we need to move windows arbitrarily like pieces
>		  of paper?  What difference does it make whether a
>		  window is a few pixels to the left or right?

I think we do but primarily for the rather intangible reason that we
should control the computer, rather than it controlling us.

>	- At the same time, current window systems don't really
>	  use the potential of these machines.  These computers can
>	  simulate arbitrary universes; we confine them to a mildly
>	  mutated desktop.  I guess I am attacking the desktop
>	  metaphor; just because it's familiar doesn't mean it's good.
>

The desktop metaphor is a product of computers being oriented toward
those tasks we perform in our offices or at a desk.  For me that is an
excellent metaphor.  I can conceive of other models, but I am not
convinced that any of them are more appropriate for most people.  What
do you propose as an alternative?  If I had an alternative to think
about I might be more interested.

>I think a good user interface ought to concentrate the available power
>on productive, often used functions (like a RISC chip :-)).  One
>shouldn't spend programmer time and computer time adding bells and
>whistles that let the user do useless things.

This is, in general, a good point.  I, for instance have yet to find a
reason to use the small icon display in the Mac Finder.  However, in
matters of user interfaces it is difficult to make a good pick of what
is useful.  Is a feature that is considered essential to .1% of the
users useful?  What about a feature that everybody uses once a year
because it is a little more convenient?  These are hard calls.
>
> .......
>
>Adam

While I obviously don't agree with you all that much, you have asked
interesting questions.  Thanks for the excuse to ramble on about some of
my favorite ideas.

Ethan Munson
CS Grad Student
UC Berkeley