Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:15331 comp.unix.wizards:13974
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!amdcad!weitek!dms!albaugh
From: albaugh@dms.UUCP (Mike Albaugh)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: spiffy terminals (was: printf, data presentation)
Message-ID: <590@dms.UUCP>
Date: 9 Jan 89 05:29:38 GMT
References: <2117@van-bc.UUCP>
Organization: Atari Games Inc., Milpitas, CA
Lines: 61

From article <2117@van-bc.UUCP>, by sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne):
> 
> One problem is the increased time and expense of developing software to
> incorporate new and better user interfaces. A prime example is the
> Macintosh. Almost any user can be doing fairly interesting and useful tasks
> with very limited training, but the cost of developing the programs for the
> Macintosh is higher due to developing the user interface.
	And re-develop it for every system release.... :-)
> 
> The primary advantage of the Mac interface is it's uniformity across
> applications, ease of use for non computer literate users and fast learning
> curve.

	I'm typing this on a Mac, used as a terminal to a xenix system,
so I have a bit to say about all this. My experience of the Mac is that
simple tasks are indeed simple to do, without even looking at the manual.
As soon as one strays from the sort of stuff covered in the tutorial, it kind
of turns on you. I sometimes call this the "brick-wall" form of learning
curve. Soon after you get up to speed, you try somthing just a little out of
the ordinary and hit a brick wall (like a function that _only_ has a short-cut
(no menu item) or one that is hidden three menues deep in a strange place.
Of course it's in the manual, in _one_ place, under a name that no-one
but the program author would think of calling it. Of course *nix users
are used to this sort of thing, so they probably don't notice :-)

	Second comment. This system is pretty spiffy, as Mac's go. 16Mhz
68020 accelerator in an SE, with a Radius Full-Page Display. For the purpose
of reading NetNews over a 1200 baud line, though, I'd rather have my old
C. Itoh 101. A cheesy keyboard, 1-bit deep seriously ugly characters (yes
a Mac can have scads of fonts, but 72 DPI make any of then small enough
to get 80 columns seriously ugly), and the inability to keep up with
_1200_ baud when re-painting seem a bit much to put up with when all I want
to do is read the news.

> 
> The bottom line is cost. The end users have and will continue to look at the
> bottom line. Sophisticated end users will generally look at all costs such

	Unfortunately, the end user will also have to "look at" a terminal
which was (often) chosen for snazzy features and buzz-words, rather than
clear, legible characters and a usable keyboard. Note, I am not anti-bitmap,
anti 630 (never seen one live), anti- X-windows, whatevr. what I am is anti-
Bells_and_whistles_bought_with_money_that_could_have_gone_toward_legibility.

	_MY_ ideal terminal/workstation would be Mono-chrome 2Kx1K (min),
3-bits deep (minimum), 72Hz vertical mininum, and a serious keyboard. It
would _never_ XOFF any host, even at 56Kbps, and it would survive staying
powered on for 24 Hours/Day without swimming. But isn't this all a bit far
afield for comp.lang.c? :-)

> -- 
> Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl     Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532

	Oh, yeah, I guess I should forstall the inevitable question, The Mac
belongs to my wife, and she makes money with it, so she gets the desk in the
spare bedroom, and my terminal gets the attic :-(

| Mike Albaugh (albaugh@dms.UUCP || {...decwrl!turtlevax!}weitek!dms!albaugh)
| Atari Games Corp (Arcade Games, no relation to the makers of the ST)
| 675 Sycamore Dr. Milpitas, CA 95035		voice: (408)434-1709
| The opinions expressed are my own (Boy, are they ever)