Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!ukma!nrl-cmf!ames!hao!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtune!codas!usfvax2!pdn!reggie From: reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: Request for human interface design anecdotes Message-ID: <1819@pdn.UUCP> Date: Tue, 24-Nov-87 12:04:11 EST Article-I.D.: pdn.1819 Posted: Tue Nov 24 12:04:11 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 28-Nov-87 10:40:29 EST References: <1721@spar.SPAR.SLB.COM> <1621@megatest.UUCP> Reply-To: reggie@pdn.UUCP (George Leach) Organization: Paradyne Corporation, Largo, Florida Lines: 92 Keywords: Novice and Expert, Programmer and End User Summary: Something for Everyone??? In article <6713@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) ) writes: >In article <407@minya.UUCP> jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers) writes: >>My claim is that Unix in fact has a good design for user-friendliness; >>the problem is vendors and system developers that violate the design by >>using low-level tools like rm at a higher (user) level. It all goes back to the intentions of the development of UNIX. It was developed by programmers, for programmers as a programming environment. >More precisely, it's making these part of a naive-user interface >that is at fault. >Non-expert users need an interface that doesn't require them to type >> or * or | or other mystical symbols. There are examples of better >interfaces for the non-expert in widespread use, for example on the >Macintosh; But the Macintosh user interface and the UNIX user interface were designed to meet two different sets of universes! One pet peeve of mine over the past several years has been the complaints voiced by people about the cryptic UNIX UI. Well is it anymore cryptic than any other real work Operating System? How about MVS? Or VMS? I really don't see why the business world likes IBM PC/XT/AT/MS-DOS UI over that offered by UNIX. They are basically the same (in terms of specifying commands that is), except that UNIX has many command names that are two character quantities rather than a command that reads like a word, eg. cp vs copy, pr vs print, etc... Naturally, a name is easier to remember than a two character command, but come on it just is not that hard. Furthermore, one could take a version of UNIX and rename the commands to more mnuemonic names, but it would no longer be UNIX. > On the other hand, it is not that hard for someone with >the proper training to learn how to exploit the usual UNIX tools >effectively, but too often users are just dumped into a UNIX shell >environment with inadequate guidance and reference and tutorial >material. >It is really fairly easy to whip up a naive-user interface to UNIX; >Of course, for my own use I prefer flexible power to safety, so I >would object to the removal of an expert-user interface; but I do >think a naive-user interface is also needed. In article <530@mtxinu.UUCP> Ed Gould writes: >I, too, want an expert-user interface while recognizing the need for >a naive-user interface. The problem I've seen with most of the naive-user >systems is that there's no reasonable migration path from that >interface to the experts' one. That is, there's no way for someone >to move on from being a beginner without learning a completely different >mechanism for interacting with the system. Ed stole my thunder with that one! I knew I should have replied yesterday and not waited until today!!!!! If the novice user, is a programmer who is new to UNIX, then the goal should be to try and keep the novice from pain while learning the system. However, this must be done in a transparent mode. To do otherwise would result in the programmer learning some variant of the UNIX UI. The transition from the novice level to more experienced level should be as simple as removing training wheels from your child's bicycle! (Ha, tell that one to my 5 year old :-) ) As far as I am concerned, and don't get me wrong I believe very much in the kind of work that people like Ben Shneiderman at U of MD. are doing, I like the UNIX UI because it allows *ME* to do my job effectively. Now if I were a businessman who was not at all interested in learning how to use the leverage of a computer, but only in how it can help me with my spreadsheet that is a different matter and a different requirement of a UI!!!! UNIX is not for everyone! It *CAN* form the platform for some very useful applications and is a wonderful programming environment. MS-DOS is no easier to use for a non computer person and it offers less in terms of capability in return for the difficulties. The only difference between it and UNIX from a UI point of view is that there is a larger base of end-user oriented application software out there that make life simpler for JOE USER. Most UNIX shops are engineering/scientific oriented where we don't really need that kind of UI, but it might be helpfull so that I'm not spending lots of time figuring out how to make the machine do what I want. That is where the lack of applications for UNIX hurts. Perhaps what we need is a couple of more interfaces like the nsh(Novice Shell) and bsh (Business Shell). Ah well, what do you want? A powerful and flexible general purpose OS that has a User Interface that is all things to all people? -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation {gatech,rutgers,attmail}!codas!pdn!reggie Mail stop LF-207 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL 34649-2826