Xref: utzoo comp.windows.misc:944 comp.sys.next:1171 comp.sys.mac:24817 comp.cog-eng:836 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!enea!kth!draken!liuida!isy!ingemar From: ingemar@isy.liu.se (Ingemar Ragnemalm) Newsgroups: comp.windows.misc,comp.sys.next,comp.sys.mac,comp.cog-eng Subject: Re: replacing the desktop metaphor (ideas and flames)(boring debate) Keywords: desktop shell Message-ID: <1989Jan5.181828.18922@isy.liu.se> Date: 5 Jan 89 17:18:28 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> <4455@Portia.Stanford.EDU> <1805@hp-sdd.HP.COM> Reply-To: ingemar@isy.liu.se Organization: Dept of EE, University of Linkoping Lines: 104 In article <1805@hp-sdd.HP.COM> andrea@hp-sdd.UUCP (Andrea K. Frankel) writes: > >In article <4455@Portia.Stanford.EDU> rdsesq@Jessica.stanford.edu (Rob Snevely) writes: >>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. > >I agree entirely. This is why I DON'T like the Mac for heavy use, >although I appreciate it for certain graphics operations. I don't agree. The advantage is that a user may have a much larger collection of programs that he uses infrequently. A program you use every day can be non intutive and illogical and hard to learn. That is no problem once you have learned it. The utilities that you use once a year is another matter. Just take a look at the Mac programs around. There are a number of easy- to-use-utilities, simple beginners programs like MacWrite, but for the professionals, there are things like MSWord and others that has a lot of features and requires a manual. There is a MacTex, too. There are easy programming environments like Turbo Pascal and Lightspeed C/Pascal, but for the more heavy-duty programming there is also MPW, a UNIX-like environment with pipes, scripts and text interface. This entire debate about the Mac-type interfaces is rather boring. Why don't you people who have never used a Mac stop suggesting improvements that have already been made? Can we please skip the "my * is best because I use it"-garbage? (Replace * with any computer, OS, program, car etc.) OK, back to business. An idea that has been mentioned (by Stephen Baumgarten) is to have some kind of text interface apart from MPW, which is large and expensive. I believe that there would be some points: - The possibility to use some kind of pipes and scripts. - The possibility to connect a VT100-style terminal to one of the Mac's serial ports in order to allow one person to do strict text work without taking the Mac away from the person who wants to do some layout or drawings, and without having to buy UNIX (A/UX). One could do this as a DA (or application, when everybody really has switched to MultiFinder) which puts up a little window for command lines. The point is that it should not be an alternative to the desktop, like MPW, but a complement. The commands should preferrably be files with code resources with a special type (since I guess that APPL would be inappropriate just like for the MPW tools), and searched for through a path. Call it reinventing MPW or writing a shell, whatever you like. It could be useful. Maybe. What do you think? (Suggested name: MacNeanderthal :-)) OK, back to the flames... (FLAME ON) >>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. > >Check out Windows Write (bundled with Microsoft Windows). It does >this exactly! > >Windows is designed around both the mouse and the keyboard, and the >guidelines for software developers are that anything you can do with >the mouse, you'd better be able to do without one too. The >"accelerators" as they're called (keystroke equivalents) are labelled >right in the pull-down menus, so that you can easily learn a new >shortcut for an operation you do frequently without having to rummage >through the manual. But it's no problem if you forget one you haven't >used in a while, because the menus are still there. You can decide on >a moment by moment basis whether you feel like typing -f-s or >pulling down File menu and clicking Save, for instance. > >Of course, Windows Write is pretty brain-damaged, and I'd only >recommend it for short memos and writing short stories at home! >I'm looking forward to the near future when I expect to see some >REAL word processors "Windowized" to act in the same way. >Andrea Frankel, Hewlett-Packard (San Diego Division) (619) 592-4664 This is ridicolous! Just replace "Windows Write" with "MacWrite" and "Windows" with "Mac Toolbox" and every word is true, except for the last sentence - the real word processors arrived long ago! Are you sure this article isn't a mutation of some Mac article from -84? In particular, a Mac program that is supposed to be used regularly should *never* force the user to walk through a lot of menus and/or dialogs for anything but the most unfrequent operations! To me, the menus are a kind of short on-line manuals. In my work, I use Mac and Sun, and SunTools doesn't seem to use key equivalents as a standard. (It is nice in other respects, though.) /Ingemar Ragnemalm -- Dept. of Electrical Engineering ...!uunet!mcvax!enea!rainier!ingemar .. University of Linkoping, Sweden ingemar@isy.liu.se