Xref: utzoo comp.cog-eng:634 comp.software-eng:814
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!whuts!spf
From: spf@whuts.UUCP (Steve Frysinger of Blue Feather Farm)
Newsgroups: comp.cog-eng,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Re: OPEN LOOK
Message-ID: <4775@whuts.UUCP>
Date: 15 Sep 88 14:19:23 GMT
References: <21787@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 30

> Xref: whuts comp.cog-eng:640 comp.software-eng:853
> 
> In article <7099@well.UUCP> shf@well.UUCP (Stuart H. Ferguson) writes:
> 
>>Scroll bars are a good example.  OPEN LOOK specifies exactly what scroll
>>bars are to look like almost at the bitmap level and how they are to
>>behave.  ...
> 
> If switching styles has never slowed you down, then you've probably never
> used SunView. There's this neat "feature" where it's the button you
> press, and not the place you press it in that determines which direction
> you scroll in. Takes me several seconds to figure out how to scroll up.
> Always. X11 scrollbars have similar peculiarities that interfere a 
> great deal with my ability to use them.  

I think that's just the point.  While having the "right" human
interface be standard is a good idea (see a previous poster's
extreme example of traffic lights), standardizing the "wrong"
human interface is NOT a good idea.  If you can convince me that
OPEN LOOK's interface is "right", fine.  But (for example), a slider
with only one adjustable parameter isn't "right" in my book, nor is
the requirement that horizontal scrollbars be on the bottom of a
window.  Elizabeth is right about SunView's insane scrollbars - now
imagine if they became a STANDARD!

Steve Frysinger

P.S. I've only begun to look at OPEN LOOK, and it very likely has some
excellent points.  The few I've cited are (probably unfairly) chosen
to point out the pitfalls of premature standardization.