Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:13675 comp.windows.misc:216
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!oberon!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!sho
From: sho@tybalt.caltech.edu (Sho Kuwamoto)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.windows.misc
Subject: Re: A/UX window systems, Mac tool...( Hum Interface)
Message-ID: <5694@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Date: 8 Mar 88 14:51:05 GMT
References: <4129@hoptoad.uucp> <283@rhesus.primate.wisc.edu> <1710@ssc-vax.UUCP> <241@eos.UUCP> <1735@ssc-vax.UUCP> <5674@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <7481@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: news@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu
Reply-To: sho@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (Sho Kuwamoto)
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 98
Keywords: window human computer interface

In article <7481@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.UUCP (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes:
>In article <5674@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> sho@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (Sho Kuwamoto) writes:
><In response to someone who said the
><Amiga system was slightly better because it has a seperate button for
><the mouse, Get REAL!  The Amigas menu bar switches depending on the
><active windows, it's just that you can't see it until you hit the
><right button.  
>
>No, having a second mouse button _is_ a win. You don't gain any
>confusion because there is an Interface Guideline which basically says
>"thou shalt use the right mouse button for menus (and similar
>things)." Very few programs use "similar things," and those that do do
>it right. My experience is that people (artists, etc.) don't have
>trouble with the second mouse button.
>

This could very well be true.  I have not dealt much with Amiga
software, but the most important thing (in my opinion) to have in a
windowing environment is a consistent user interface accross
applications.

> [Describes benefits of menu button]
>
><Another thing that scares me.  Customizable mice seem fine for a multi
><user environment; if I get an account on a new Sun, I copy over my
><setup files or whatever and everything is hunky dory, right?  But for
><a single user machine, I couldn't imagine what would happen if *my*
><mac functioned differently from the one my friend has, which
><functioned differently from the one the school has for public use.  
>
>You mean the Mac isn't customizable _at all_? You can't put in your
>favorite desktop accessories, and can't load the function keys with
>your favorite acceloraters? And what's this I heard about pop-up
>menus on the Mac? They don't exist? Or don't count as customization?

The idea is that users can add functionality through customization but
rarely take away functionality.  If my neighbor has installed the
pop-up init, I can use a complex combination of modifier keys to save
time and get at my menus more easily.  On the other hand, if I do not
know about this ability, I can reach up to the menubar as usual.  

Now if a sun user has made it so that the rightmost button is resize,
the leftmost button is selct from menu, and the center button is hop
into the editor, this is fine for him, but h*** for me.  Now I don't
know a thing about Suns (I wish I did, they seem like very nice
machines too.) but if a user typically changes the functionality of
the existing interface, that could potentially cause problems.  (Try
using an editor in someone else's account where he's re-bound all the
keys to work with the function keys on his terminal...)
>
> [more advantages of multiple mouse buttons]
>
>As DRI demonstrated, the Mac menu interface can be put on an
>two-button mouse with no problem. Until you demonstrate that a
>two-button interface (pop up menus + followmouse, or some such) can be
>adequately dealt with (by that, I mean that you don't have to drive
>the window manager with two hands) on a one-button mouse, the
>one-button mouse will have to be considered inferior. Of course, Apple
>may have done it right, and left hooks in the software for more
>buttons. I know Amiga did.
>

I don't believe Apple has.  Too bad.

This is not a complete defense of the one-button mouse, as I have had
little experience with a multi-button mouse.  However, the fact that
one is more powerful than the other does not prove that one is more
useful than the other.  If this were so, we would have five button
mice with pressure sensitive keys that would do different things for
each of the 2^5 combinations of keys depending on how hard the keys
were hit.  To make this more fair, consider the following analogy.

Why make automatic transmissions when you can use manual
transmissions?  If I *want* to change gears at exactly the same time
an automatic would shift, I can.  However, I have the option of
dropping my car into 3rd on the freeway to pass another car, or
putting it into 5th on surface streets to save gas (Don't laugh, I
know someone who does this.)  The only problem is that manual
transmissions are more difficult to use.  Those who are experienced at
driving a stick will say that it's just as easy once you get used to
it.  However, it seems evident that a large percentage of the populace
prefers automatic transmission just the same.  To them, it seems
hardly worth their effort to learn to drive a stick for little or no
percieved benefit.

In the case of the Amiga mouse, it seems that the right mouse button
is pretty much reserved for menus, which means that it's probably not
that much harder to use.  On the other hand, if *basic* functions are
implemented in terms of multiple button mice in different ways for
different programs/machines, it could very well be a hassle that is
more trouble than it's worth.

						-Sho

SonicYouthREMBeatlesKateBushReplacementsResidentsHuskerDuSeveredHeadsArtOfNoise
ChrisAndCoseyJoyDivisionKillingJokeLaurieAndersonWireLouReedSkinnyPuppyBrianEno

 (sho@tybalt.caltech.edu, sho@caltech.bitnet, ...!cit-vax!tybalt!sho)