Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!xanth!nic.MR.NET!umn-cs!mmm!cipher
From: cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard)
Newsgroups: comp.cog-eng
Subject: Re: replacing the desktop metaphor
Message-ID: <1197@mmm.UUCP>
Date: 29 Dec 88 16:23:37 GMT
References: <850@mtfmi.att.com> <673@cogsci.ucsd.EDU> <1489@umbc3.UMD.EDU> <22616@pbhya.PacBell.COM> <66401@ti-csl.CSNET> <4510@xenna.Encore.COM>
Reply-To: cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard)
Distribution: na
Organization: 3M Company - Software and Electronics Resource Center (SERC); St. Paul, MN
Lines: 70

In article <4510@xenna.Encore.COM> bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) writes:
>>        Find:   word    Replace With:   new-word
>>        ^[:.,$s/word/new-word/g
>>Can you tell which one is more intuitive?...
>> Simple yes.  Powerful yes.  Intuitive %$#@ no!

>You... conveniently fail to mention that the latter is far more powerful,
>once learned. Or is taking a little time to learn how to use a tool a
>dirty word?

I think he said "powerful yes."
When you add features, there is a certain amount of complexity
you unavoidably add to the user interface.  However, a good
design can minimize the complexity.  An "intuitive" design
is one in which the method of doing some function is obvious
(and in which the obvious answer is the correct one!).  The
vi replace sequence is non-obvious -- it's something you
wouldn't think of trying unless if you didn't already know
what it was.

>I remember being driven nuts trying to figure out any number of fancy
>typewriters or xerox machines until I asked someone to show me how or
>read a manual. There's nothing all that unique about most computer
>software.

Quite true.  Unfortunately, bad design is not limited to
computer-human interfaces.  We find it everywhere.

>There seems to be a fascination in this field with catering to some
>mythical person with a two-digit IQ, total fear of computers, and not
>enough technical sense to operate a push-button phone.

This person is unfortunately not all that mythical.  And there are
lots and lots of people who don't know how to use all the functions
of their own phones.  Including many hot-shot software designers.
I know just a small subset of the functions on my own phone... it's
not really worth my while to look up and remember the four-digit
key code to put someone on hold, for instance.  Why the hell isn't
there a "hold" button on the phone, and a light to show you someone's
on hold.  That's the way it used to be done.  Phones have evolved
backward in the last few years.  All the fancy added features are
useless because nobody can remember how to use them, and even the
old features have been replaced by fancy key codes so they're
not useful either!

>I've... spent far too many hours listening to
>boors "prove" to me that... holding down a
>control key is just way beyond the ability of (that loathsome
>sub-human drooling moron) the secretary.

It takes some smarts to be a good secretary.  It takes a lot less smarts
to be a "data entry operator."  Especially since many of them are
temporaries.  The problem is not holding down a control key, but
remembering which key does which function.  If people have to be
trained how to use a program, or have to use the manual frequently,
the program was poorly designed.

>My suggestion is that when you find such people don't hire them as
>they will probably be poorly suited to the rest of the skilled white
>collar job they are being considered for, let them find more
>appropriate work (for both of you.)

Even highly intelligent people benefit from good design: it helps
them do their jobs faster and make fewer mistakes.

-- 
    "Lalabalele talala!  Callabele lalabalica falahle!  |   Andre Guirard
     Callamalala galalate!  Caritalla lalabalee		|   cipher@3m.com
     kallalale poo!"					|  "Wake me up for
	 						|   the good part."