Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!decvax!gancarz
From: gancarz@decvax.UUCP (Mike Gancarz)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Here we go again...
Message-ID: <104@decvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Jun-87 14:30:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: decvax.104
Posted: Fri Jun 26 14:30:53 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Jun-87 10:02:25 EDT
References: <5840003@wdl1.UUCP> <78@decvax.UUCP> <99@decvax.UUCP> <102@decvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: comp.windows.x
Followup-To: comp.windows.x
Distribution: world
Organization: Ultrix Engineering Group, Digital Equipment Corp.
Lines: 26
Keywords: uwm, window manager, meta

In article <> Karl.Kleinpaste@cbstr1.att.com writes:
  >
  >Certainly.  No one expects to please the world.  But one would do well
  >to introduce the world to something new in a more gentle fashion.

We are in violent agreement on this point.  Like U*IX, uwm was not
intended for use by novices.  But you know how it goes...

  >Perhaps 2 sets of defaults would have been appropriate, one for naive
  >novices, and one for experienced users who need a base from which to
  >customize.  Just a thought, and it might be a bad thought at that.

2 or more sets of defaults would be more appropriate.  Novices and experts
use systems in vastly different ways, so their user interfaces should be
varied accordingly.  I would nominate xnwm in "menu bar" mode as a
usable novice interface and uwm as a reasonable interface for the
seasoned user.  Both would need lots of work to fulfill their respective
ends of the spectrum, however.

  >Not at all.  The only thing I'm arguing for is the Principle of Least
  >Astonishment.

X itself breaks this principle in so many areas, I don't see why its user
interface(s) should be an exception. :-)

--Mike