Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!pacbell!pbhyf!rob
From: rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: naive users, featurism, consistency
Keywords: elm 2.2
Message-ID: <5077@pbhyf.PacBell.COM>
Date: 20 Apr 89 21:24:56 GMT
References: <23370@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Lines: 32

In article <23370@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> jim@insect.berkeley.edu () writes:
+Elm 2.1 was a program I could use without a manual.  When I showed it
+to my boss, he recognized it as something appropriate for our
+ADMINISTRATIVE users.  Not so for v2.2.  Elm is starting to feel like
+ADMINISTRATIVE users.  Not so for v2.2. 

I'd like to know specifically what features of elm 2.2 require a manual
that didn't in elm 2.1.

+Like ucb mail, elm seems to be falling prey to creeping-featurism,
+designed by committee.  If elm is destined to become ucb mail with
+curses, goodbye!

I don't know ucb mail. So explain without saying "it's like ucbmail"
(that's not a reason) why features (tell me which specific ones) should
not be added to elm.

+For me, the litmus test for elm sanity would be a consistent key to press
+to cancel (or back-out of) the current situation. (Is is ^D, ".", "q", "i",
+or what? -- and why don't ESC or ^C work?)  If a naive user guesses
+wrong, s/he can get into even worse trouble.
+...  I am worried, however, that Dave Taylor's design for conceptual
+consistency is getting lost in creeping-featurism.

Actually, we *did* make the user interface *more* consistent. I get the
feeling you think it's inconsistent because it's different from what
you were used to in superficial (but salient) ways.
-- 
Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell UNIX/C Reusable Code Library
Email:     ...![backbone]!pacbell!pbhyf!rob   OR  rob@pbhyf.PacBell.COM
Office:    (415) 823-2417  Room 4E850O San Ramon Valley Administrative Center
Residence: (415) 827-4301  R Bar JB, Concord, California