Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!bloom-beacon!chekmate
From: chekmate@bloom-beacon.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Better Windows? (LONG)
Message-ID: <565@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 12-May-87 00:58:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: bloom-be.565
Posted: Tue May 12 00:58:47 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 14-May-87 02:12:10 EDT
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: chekmate@artemis.UUCP (Adam Kao)
Distribution: world
Organization: Engineers, Scientists, Gorillas
Lines: 59
Xref: utgpu comp.sys.amiga:4431 comp.sys.mac:2777 comp.sys.atari.st:3171
Summary: can it be done?

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.
	- 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.
		- 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.
		- 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?
	- 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.

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.  Of course we also need
a system that is "intuitively obvious", and these requirements often
conflict.  In essence, I'm posing some open questions; what features
belong in this kind of system?  For example, I often hear windows
described as independent terminals - why not endow them with all the
capabilities of the physical terminal (window recursion)? Is this
useful?  If there is an ideal window arrangement for certain
applications, do we need to let the user mouse around trying to find
it?  What kind of metaphor should we use, if not the desktop?  Is
a real-world metaphor necessary?

The fundamental question is, how can we make the important stuff
available at the right time, without cluttering the display with
leftovers and without forcing the user to clean up after us?

I realize I've been long-winded, but I feel that the hardware is just
sitting there begging to be used, and when the software catches up
we're really gonna see what these damn machines can do.








Adam