Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!decvax!tektronix!tekecs!nobody
From: nobody@tekecs.TEK.COM (-for inetd server command)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.misc
Subject: Re: replacing the desktop metaphor
Keywords: desktop metaphor, graphical interfaces, computing environments
Message-ID: <10781@tekecs.TEK.COM>
Date: 21 Dec 88 23:14:21 GMT
References: <4362@pitt.UUCP> <257@gloom.UUCP>
Reply-To: stank@anvil.GWD.TEK.COM (Stan Kalinowski)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR
Lines: 37


I think people are getting a little too caught up in using metaphors.
In the past, there were a few successful uses of metaphores to
describe how systems worked, for example, the flow of a conversation
at a party was used to describe how Ethernet works, or the analogy of
a windowing system to an office desktop.  In those cases, the
metaphore helped the user understand a complex system by equating it
to a complex system the he or she already understands.  

It seems to me that there is a trend towards finding a metaphor that
fits the problem (computer interfaces or whatever) and then using that
as a specification for implementing a solution.  Metaphores are useful
for communicating understanding of complex systems but they should not
(in my opinion) be used for design of systems.  The odds are against
finding a real world system (model) that fits the needs of the user
and the limitations of current computer technology.  What seems to be
happening now is that people are trying to "force fit" metaphores to
the task.  For example, I think the idea of extending the desk top
metaphore to an office model replete with rooms and hallways is
absurd.  Why force a user to do do a lot of "walking around" just
because it nicely fits a metaphore?  True, the office metaphore makes
the description of a complex system easier (easier for the designer,
that is) but it isn't necessarily better for the user.  I think human
interface designers should spend more time learning how to effectively
communicate (using metaphores if only if needed) and less time trying
to avoid the communication problem by modeling computer interaction
systems after existing real world systems.

So there, I've said it, and I feel better.  I guess I'll sit back and
warm my feet with the flameage.  :-)

							Stank

US Mail: Stan Kalinowski, Tektronix, Inc.	
         Information Display Group, Interactive Technologies Division
         PO Box 1000, MS 61-028, Wilsonville OR 97070   Phone:(503)-685-2458
uucp:    {ucbvax,decvax,allegra,uw-beaver}!tektronix!orca!stank