Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU!RICHER From: RICHER@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU (Mark Richer) Newsgroups: comp.windows.news Subject: Re: Jim Fulton's comments Message-ID: <12306285733.82.RICHER@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU> Date: Fri, 29-May-87 17:55:43 EDT Article-I.D.: SUMEX-AI.12306285733.82.RICHER Posted: Fri May 29 17:55:43 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 31-May-87 10:38:40 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Distribution: world Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 60 Date: Fri, 29 May 87 11:06:32 PDT From: Mark Richer Subject: Re: Jim Fulton's comments To: hoptoad.UUCP!gnu@CGL.UCSF.EDU Cc: NeWS-makers@brillig.umd.edu Well I have been sitting back following this discussion, hesitating to get involved, but here's my two cents anyhow: I think there is a real inherent tension between the need for standardization (uniformity, conformity) and innovation. Similarly there is a tension between the desire/benefits of a standard user interface and the reality there is not a general consensus (or at least a sufficient one) on such an interface. Personally I think the Mac interface is a great success and despite whatever shortcomings it possesses, it is clear that Apple put a great deal of effort (intelligent and skilled effort) into its development. Still it's hard to imagine choosing an interface today that we could say should be a standard user interface for all windowing applications on all machines. Obviously we are barely ready to settle on a standard programming interface (i.e., toolkit) either. However, the point is well-taken that a bunch of different applications (regardless if they all run under NeWS, X, MS-windows, or even Mac windows) with different user interfaces is a real lose. ONe perspective that helps is to separate out the needs of the research community from the commercial end-user. The research community wants to be able to experiment with different user-interface designs within the same windowing paradigm (NeWS and/or X), but the commercial end-user (or student trying to get some work done) couldn't care less about such flexibility. A uniform interface leads to far more productive use of application software than a bunch of applications all with their own unique, clever user-interface designs which often conflict even at the keystroke or mouse selection level. So my conclusion is that the modularity/layering that NeWS/X provide is nice for allowing experimentation and future innovation. It give vendors and individual programers more flexibility (not necessarily less headaches). BUt I think that at minimum each vendor should establish clear and thorough user interface guidelines (perhaps applications should be certified) so at least applications on the same piece of hardware will work in a similar way. Of course, many places (especially universities) desire a heterogeneous hardware environment to meet a diverse set of needs and it would be nice to know you can move from machine to machine and not have to deal with a different and potentially conflicting user-interface. I have already experienced the pain of swithching between several windowing environments where conventions for using the mouse conflicted. After a while you don't care which way is better anymore, only that there would be just one way so you could rely on one automatic/unconscious habit to work transparently. So this seems to call for standards across the board for commercial applications (buck the standard at your own risk --- some Macintosh applications have been severely criticized for not following the user-interface guidelines and the word gets around to consumers). Of course all this at the risk that future innovation may be delayed (I'm not convinced this is a big factor anyhow regarding commercial products), nobody will be able to sue anyone else for "look and feel," and normal people might actually enjoy using computers rather than moaning and groaning about them. Mark -------