Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!hao!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!maximo.UUCP!mo From: mo@maximo.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.windows.news Subject: Jim Fulton's comments Message-ID: <8705221517.AA05422@maximo.uucp> Date: Fri, 22-May-87 13:07:07 EDT Article-I.D.: maximo.8705221517.AA05422 Posted: Fri May 22 13:07:07 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 24-May-87 19:44:19 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Distribution: world Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 75 From: Date: Fri, 22 May 87 11:17:24 -0400 Mr. Fulton claims that creating good user interfaces requires great skill and artistic talent - I whole-heartedly agree. Ideed, I said so in my first comment. Further, he accurately pointed out that a "large, complex library of widgets" won't make good interfaces. Again, I completely agree. What he and several other respondents seem to be missing, however, is the vital importance that different applications running under the "Industry Standard" window system [X111,NeWS,etc, you pick] (I know, I know, but it will happen anyway) NOT, repeat NOT have different user interfaces!!!!! The last thing in the world I want is to have three different applications windows open on my screen, each with a different user-interface paradigm!!! THIS WILL BE FATAL! I believe one of the points to having windows in the first place is so one program doesn't take over the world, but yet, all these interfaces, and I infer their designers, believe their program will be the only one being used at any one time! This will lead to a replay of the current situation - every program has a different command language, only now it will be visual, not linear. A bit of apocrypha: A survey was done in the moderatly-recent past of IBM PC and Macintosh users regarding how much software they have, how much software they really USE, and how long they spent learning to use it. Note they interviewed REAL PEOPLE, not programmers. PC users generally have 8-10 or so pieces of software. They generally feel facile with only 2 or 3 pieces. They spend 20-40 HOURS learning to use EACH one. (This is probably why they don't learn more of them!) Mac users generally have 15-20 or so pieces of software. They generally feel facile with 10-13 of them. They spent 30 minutes to 1 hour learning the first one, but only about 20 MINUTES learning the additional ones. This ease of learning was universally ascribed to the commonality of the user interface BETWEEN programs. If software running on mid- and high-end workstations is ever going to be a broad commercial sucess, instead of an academic nicety or a select vertical market (these two are probably redundant!), this issue must be considered. Quite frankly, given the choice between a system with lots of individually good, but collectively randomly-behaved software, and a system which runs a lot of essentially-equally-powerful software with a very consistant interface, the randoms have little hope of commercial sucess. This is vitally important to those of us interested in writing and SELLING high-quality software so we can make a good living doing so. Oh yes, as Henry Spencer pointed out, and I cannot agree with more, There is no tool like the Right One for the job. But that doesn't make a hammer good for putting in screws because it does it so fast! Yours for the *right* tool, and clearer windows, -Mike O'Dell