Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att-cb!att-ih!pacbell!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!uwmcsd1!bbn!rochester!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!benoni
From: benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Pull down menus.
Message-ID: <1739@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: 9 Mar 88 06:23:22 GMT
References: <4129@hoptoad.uucp> <283@rhesus.primate.wisc.edu> <1710@ssc-vax.UUCP> <14458@oddjob.UChicago.EDU>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Corp., Seattle WA
Lines: 14

In article <14458@oddjob.UChicago.EDU>, mcb@oddjob.UChicago.EDU (Still amused by setenv NAME) writes:
> alternative to the standard interface.  The reason the Macintosh has a 
> one-button mouse (in case anyone doesn't know) is that the average user 
> works > faster with a single button.  Apple tested this fairly 
> extensively, and it turns out that most people get confused when there's 
> more than one button on the mouse.
I take it you believe them?
I have worked on a one-button mac and three button Apollos and Suns and
I hold the opposite opinion (and obviously those companies must share
that opinion since they give you three button mice).  I tend to work
much faster on a three button mouse (three functions versus one function).
When I go back to the Mac the one-button mouse seems completely awkward
and lacking flexibility.  Obviously there must be a point of no return -
i wouldn't want to work on a 92-button mouse :-)