Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!microsoft!paulc
From: paulc@microsoft.UUCP (Paul Canniff 2/1011)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Iconitis
Message-ID: <1264@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 9 Apr 89 00:13:08 GMT
References: <1930@dataio.Data-IO.COM> <11555@lanl.gov>
Reply-To: paulc@microsoft.UUCP (Paul Canniff 2/1011)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 34


Preface ... I agree that icon abuse exists and that text is very
powerful form of information.    I use "vi", I used Wordstar, I
have the scars of every character-based text interface, so don't
get on my case.

I have some questions about this specific paragraph, though.

In article <11555@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
	< text deleted>
>My major objection with icons is that often I know very well what I want
>to do, but I can't do it without walking down some menu.  This requires
>that I use the mouse, move to the right place to bring up the desired
>menu, move to the selected item, etc..  But, since I already KNOW what
>I want to do, what I really need is to type in a short command!  The
>icon interface simply slows down experienced users.

I'm confused.  One of the major advantages of iconic interfaces is that
they reduce the number of menus.  Look at the palette in any paint program.
It replaces a menu of tools.  What sort of app are you using that requires
menu operations to access icons?  Talk about the worst of both worlds!
I'd appreciate hearing about this example in some detail.

Also, icons which are "objects" (buzzword alert) do more than a menu
can do.   You can drag stuff to them (trash can, anyone?) and have them
"do something" to the stuff.  So in addition to having an icon represent
an object, it can be an "active" object.  

Flight of fantasy:  I'm just waiting for someone to make a little
"copy machine" icon to drag files into.  Hope it works better
than real copiers.  I can see it now ....

	Diagnostic J8.
	Please consult key operator or your service manual.