Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!umd5!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!j.cc.purdue.edu!pur-ee!pur-phy!mrstve!wintek!tps
From: tps@wintek.UUCP (Tim Stockman)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Universal OS (striving for flexibility)
Summary: Is everything intuitive?
Message-ID: <564@wintek.UUCP>
Date: 15 May 88 00:49:28 GMT
References: <769@imagine.PAWL.RPI.EDU> <76700017@uiucdcsp> <843@actnyc.UUCP> <4624@ihlpf.ATT.COM> <1090@mcgill-vision.UUCP> <4724@ihlpf.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: tps@wintek.UUCP (Tim Stockman)
Organization: Wintek Corporation, Lafayette IN
Lines: 24

In article <4624@ihlpf.ATT.COM>, nevin1@ihlpf.ATT.COM (00704a-Liber) writes:
> A universal OS (as well as a universal programming language),
> assuming that one exists, must be simple and intuitive to use.  I, as
> the user, should never have to look at a manual or go to a help
> screen.

This would be very nice if things were this simple.  The real question is:
How does one learn by "intuition".  In the case of the Mac and other
icon type systems, the user is presented with an interface that describes
itself in familiar terms, like file folders, sheets of paper, and a trash
can.  His "intuition", in this case, is merely what he has learned to do
with real file folders, real sheets of paper, and real trash cans.  The
point is that he only knows how to do what he has already learned to do
in a real office.  I'll admit that this is a good way to overcome a
person's fear of computers.  But if the person wants to learn how to really
use the computer, he'll eventually have to acquire more knowledge than
that which can be obtained from trial and error, or making obvious
choices.  At that point, he has to go to some type of manual (possibly
on-line) or receive some type of training.  That is, unless you want him
to re-invent what he needs to know.  (I could flame about this for a long
time, because I believe that the authors of many programs and operating
systems are most guilty of this, but that's another topic...)

Tim Stockman
...!pur-ee!wintek