Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ernie.Berkeley.EDU!jas
From: jas@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Jim Shankland)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Mouse Editing (was: Portability and the Ivory Tower)
Message-ID: <28684@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 5 Apr 89 01:47:25 GMT
References: <754@oravax.UUCP> <225800146@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <9937@smoke.BRL.MIL> <948@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu> <6883@cg-atla.UUCP> <9984@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: jas@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Jim Shankland)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 21

In article <9984@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
!I stopped using our EMACS editors for most purposes once Rob Pike's "sam"
!editor became available.  Its use of the mouse is cleanly integrated into
!the design of the editor's bitmap interface, not just tacked on as an
!afterthought.  It makes a considerable difference.
!
!Many of today's highly touted graphical interfaces strike me as atrocious,
!but that doesn't mean that graphical interfaces are a bad idea.  I've seen
!some excellent ones.  Unfortunately interface designers don't often seem
!to have studied past good examples before setting out on their own, or
!else they rip off the worst examples such as the IBM PC keyboard and the
!Macintosh icon interface, rather than think about the design issues.

That's tantalizing.  Would you be willing to elaborate a little on what
you think makes a good graphical interface, what's a good example and
why, and what's wrong with the IBM PC keyboard and Macintosh icons?

Jim Shankland
jas@ernie.berkeley.edu

"Blame it on the lies that killed us, blame it on the truth that ran us down"