Xref: utzoo comp.windows.misc:851 comp.sys.next:1053 comp.sys.mac:24479 comp.cog-eng:753
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!think!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!labrea!Portia!news
From: news@Portia.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.misc,comp.sys.next,comp.sys.mac,comp.cog-eng
Subject: Re: replacing the desktop metaphor (Why any metaphor?)
Message-ID: <4455@Portia.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 28 Dec 88 22:19:13 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: rdsesq@Jessica.stanford.edu (Rob Snevely)
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 26

The issue is not ease of use, the issue is how effectively a person can
use a program as a tool to make his/her life or job better or easier.
The mac does have 1 advantage over emacs or wordstar, it is easier for a 
new user to get up and running. However, once that user is up and running,
the interface can slow down there speed and productivity. So I propose both,
why cant we have a word processor that has two interfaces. A "user-friendly"
pull down menu -- dialog based interface for new users. and a command
oriented interface for advanced users. This would allow those users who
want or need a command oriented interface access to it while allowing
new or intermediate users to have the point and click. Also since the
menu interface would be around all the time, it would help to eliminate
the problems of going from on to the other cause they are interchangable.
So if I do a lot of side by side formatting I could use the command
interface to speed that along but I would be able to use the menu interface
for things that I don't use all the time.
From: rdsesq@Jessica.stanford.edu (Rob Snevely)
Path: Jessica!rdsesq

Makes sense to me. what about you?

rob

rdsesq@jessica.stanford.edu

** If evil is the food of genius, there aren't many demons around **
		    **	Adam and the Ants  **