Xref: utzoo comp.sys.next:1129 comp.sys.mac:24654 comp.cog-eng:808
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!ucsd!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tikal!sigma!uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!kevin
From: kevin@gtisqr.UUCP (Kevin Bagley)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next,comp.sys.mac,comp.cog-eng
Subject: Re: replacing the desktop metaphor (Why any metaphor?)
Message-ID: <624@hindmost.gtisqr.UUCP>
Date: 4 Jan 89 02:14:27 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: kevin@hindmost.UUCP (Kevin Bagley)
Organization: Global Technology International, Inc.
Lines: 62

In article <4510@xenna.Encore.COM> bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) writes:
>From: holland@m2.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander)
>>Typical Mac Word Processor:
>>        Find:   word    Replace With:   new-word
>>vi:
>>        ^[:.,$s/word/new-word/g
>>Can you tell which one is more intuitive?  
 [stuff deleted]
>The issue is not which is more "intuitive" (whatever that means)
 [stuff deleted]
>Or is taking a little time to learn how to use a tool a dirty word?
 For myself and my co-workers, 'NO', but for my sister-in-law running
 a tanning-parlor whose least desire in the world is to learn programming,
 'YES!' emphatically. Especially when the power and complexity would
 be a total waste of time.

 [more stuff deleted]
>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.
 I think that creating a smoother and more 'intuituve' interface is
 *not* catering to a lesser IQ, but rather to a person who may have
 a higher IQ than you, but who has different priorities and responsibilities.

>Perhaps we are actually patting ourselves on the head and trying to
>convince the world how hard what we do is? Hmmm?
 I doubt it!  I use emacs (and vi) almost exclusively at work where
 this type of power is needed.  At home, I use WriteNow, which for
 many things is a true relief from emacs and vi. Even though WriteNow
 is much more intuitive, it is also more powerful for certain things.

>Much of it really isn't, I've seen many people of mean talent handle
>vi or emacs perfectly well, and spent far too many hours listening to
>boors "prove" to me that it's not possible, that holding down a
>control key is just way beyond the ability of (that loathsome
>sub-human drooling moron) the secretary.

 Perhaps the secretary has more important secretarial tasks to do
 than spend several days/weeks getting up to speed on the 'ultra-
 powerful-meta-escape-key' driven, binding-table, macro capable
 word processor. I think creating idiots out of those that don't
 use "your" favorite WP is idiotic.

>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.)
 This amounts to nothing more than high-tech discrimination.
 If the person can accomplish the task with the tools at hand, be they
 a 'Maclike' word processor or 'vi', or whatever, they should be considered
 for the job. I certainly would not discriminate on the basis that a
 person had not been schooled in the almost infinite variety of word-
 processors that exist.

 I use and like EMACS. I don't feel that a person that doesn't use
 EMACS is some moron that can't dial a phone. For some things, emacs
 and vi are very weak, such as indexing, generating table-of-contents,
 red-lining, etc. etc. But that doesn't make emacs users idiots with
 less brains than a slug (washington state pet).

>	-Barry Shein, ||Encore||

 Grudgingly prepared with emacs...