Xref: utzoo comp.windows.misc:889 comp.sys.next:1098 comp.sys.mac:24556 comp.cog-eng:784
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!killer!pollux!ti-csl!m2!holland
From: holland@m2.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.misc,comp.sys.next,comp.sys.mac,comp.cog-eng
Subject: Re: replacing the desktop metaphor (Why any metaphor?)
Message-ID: <66537@ti-csl.CSNET>
Date: 30 Dec 88 18:19:00 GMT
References: <850@mtfmi.att.com] <673@cogsci.ucsd.EDU> <1489@umbc3.UMD.EDU> <66512@ti-csl.CSNET> <22626@pbhya.PacBell.COM>
Sender: news@ti-csl.CSNET
Reply-To: holland@m2.UUCP (Fred Hollander)
Organization: TI Computer Science Center, Dallas
Lines: 79

In article <22626@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes

>] Also, since you are wondering what intuitive means, I'll include an excerpt
>] from Webster's, "directly apprehended" and my own definition in this context,
>] "not requiring a manual or formal training".
>
>I'm perfectly happy to accept that definition.  Now please tell me what is
>intuitive about selecting some particular button to push on a mouse and how
>many times (*and* how fast) to press it?  The Mac use of the "double-click"
>is *not*--I repeat *not*--intuitively obvious.  And yet--you can not use
>a mac (at least as a novice) without knowing that.  Therefore--without
>"manual or formal training" the Mac is unusable--at least by me.  We can
>discuss what fraction of the populace shares that idiosyncracy, but until
>the fraction becomes very small *some* form of help will be needed for *any*
>system.

Perhaps you're right that there needs to be some introduction to the Macintosh
for new users.  But beyond that, there are many programs on the Mac that can
be effectively used without any manual or training.  Even more complex programs
can be used on a somewhat limited basis before referring to the manual.  I say
this from first hand experience as well as discussions with others.

>In the past, it would be quite proper to hire the president of a company
>in the face of a lack of technical knowledge.  This is no longer true.

I never said that it would be acceptable for an executive to be technically
inept.  Just that his/her time would be better spent than learning a system
that is more complex and powerful than required to fulfill their needs.

>The president of the company had better be able assess the value and
>accuracy of such minor things a spreadsheet outputs.  If he cannot
>understand the powers and limits of computers he will not be able to
>understand the economy your company is operating in.  This could
>*seriously* impact *your* future.  Learn unix--not needed, per se--but
>he'd better know some system or other--at least well enough to get his
>mail.

Agreed.  This doesn't seem to be the intent of the other poster's response.

Fred Hollander
Computer Science Center
Texas Instruments, Inc.
holland%ti-csl@csnet-rela



































The above statements are my own and not representative of Texas Instruments.