Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!ames!oliveb!apple!claris!krazy From: krazy@claris.com (Jeff Erickson) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: MacWrite II's spell checker Message-ID: <10010@claris.com> Date: 3 May 89 14:32:35 GMT References: <23910@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> Distribution: na Organization: Claris Corporation, Santa Clara CA Lines: 253 KEY: ~~~ | Steve Goldfield || Jeff Erickson ||| Alastair Milne |||| Steve Goldfield (again) | What I was really saying is that, aside from its initial pass, I | could spell check a document quicker on my Kaypro II than I do | on my Mac II, not because of the electronics but because of the | design of the software. Oh boy.... I hope this doesn't get blown into another mouse versus keyboard flame war. I'm sure I'm going to regret this, but here goes... || [...] Since the dialog is movable (as is WriteNow's), || you can look to see exactly where the word is, anyway. | | Perhaps it's because I'm not a mouse-lover when I'm in a word | processing program, but I found my old CP/M spelling checker | superior because I could get it to implement all my choices | by typing a single character without removing my hands from | the keyboard. The number of choices isn't so great that one | needs a mouse, and if you have to type in a replacement | spelling you don't have to reposition your hands. The point | is that when you are in a spelling mode/program, you want | to get through it and out of it as quickly as possible. True. That's why MWII has the keyboard equivalents for replacements and each of the buttons. You can spellcheck the entire document, make corrections, check other words, use the checker's suggestions (or not), all without taking your hands from the keyboard. The up and down arrows go through the list of suggestions. The return key makes the placement (either the selected suggestion or the contents of the edit field if none is selected). Command-L learns. Command-S skips. Command-C checks the word in the edit field. Command-period cancels. || [description of MWII's dialog box, and the use of cmd-1 through cmd-6 || or duble-clicking to choose suggestions] | | That's more like what I'd like to have except that I'd like to be | able to type numbers or letters to implement my choices than to | have to click the squeaky mouse. I usually like the mouse when I'm | drawing or desktop publishing, but in general I find that it is | overused in some Mac software. Here I disagree. My personal opinion is that if it were possible, every- thing should be doable either from the mouse or the keyboard. The problem is not that the mouse is overused, but the the keyboard is underused, IMHO. |||| Ability to mark words found by speller to locate them |||| in an editor: sometimes faster. [discussion of WriteNow's modeless dialog deleted] | I've found it very cumbersome to alternate back and forth between | the speller box and the text: too many keys to type or mouse | clicks. |||| Ability to back up: Sometimes you change your mind on how to |||| spell something, such as a transliterated name (Qaddafi, Kadaffi, |||| Qadhafi--intifada, intifadah) or a word with more than one correct |||| spelling (modeling, modelling). [more discussion of modelessness deleted] | The key point the respondents have missed is that there are | usually ways to do what my CP/M spell checker did. But whereas | it performed these acts quickly, usually by typing a single | character, all the Mac programs I've used require a sequence | of several operations, either with control-character or mouse | clicks or both. The fact that a task can be accomplished isn't | saying much if the user has to do three or four times as many | operations to get it done. But it isn't three or four times as many operations. You just click once in the right place. You, or someone else, is going to point out that "click once in the right place" involves (1) taking your hands off the keyboard (2) putting it on the mouse (3) positinoing the mouse (4) clicking the mouse button (5) taking your hands off the mouse (6) scratching your nose and (7) putting your hands back on the keyboard. I never notice the steps. You never notice the steps involved in locating the "e" key on your keyboard, either. It's instinct for you. In exactly the same way, the mouse is instinct for me. Admittedly, I had to learn the instinct, just like I had to learn the instinct required to type quickly. | Perhaps this is because my old spell | checker was dedicated; all you could do was spell check when | you were in it. As a result, it knew that the possible operations | it might have to carry out were quite limited and did them with | very simple commands and very efficiently. Because WriteNow, | and presumably MW II, too, are also preserving the option of | doing many other tasks at any time at the whim of the user, | the task of spell checking has become more onerous. That's | why I suggested putting an optimal spell checker in a desk | accessory, though it could also be integrated into a word | processor. The advantage of a desk accessory is that it | could be used with any word processing program instead | of having a different speller for each program one uses; | I have three for example. It is a central tenet of Its Holy Interfaceness that the user should be able to do anything at any point. Modelessness is next to godliness. If you must be modal, make sure the user CANNOT be confused by the different commands. We, the experienced users, have learned to cope with modes. "I'll just check the whole thing, and THEN go back and look at it." The point of modelessness is that you shouldn't HAVE to wait. I want to look at it NOW, fix it NOW, and then go back to the spell checker. Or not. Who knows? Certainly not the developers! :-) There are technical problems associated with a spell checker desk accessory. Somehow, the DA has to access the application's data, which is *N*O*T* going to be stored as straight text. Either that, or it has to fake out the application into putting pieces of the document on the clipboard. Either you lose performance, or the checker has to know so much about the application that it may as well be integrated. Thunder, if I'm not mistaken, is of the fake-out-clipboard variety. Claris has one spelling checker in all its Mac products. Currently, I believe MWII, MacDraw II, and MacProject II all use it, and I think plans have been announced for inclusion into FileMaker II. Same interface, same dictionary files, in fact, the same CODE. || When you find a misspelled word and offer a replacement, we replace ALL || instances of that misspelled word. [...] || (Of course, you can do that with Find/Change, too, in both programs.) | | Again, of course you can do it. But not, I assume, by typing a | single character to back up to the previous spell checking site, | previously flagged word, whatever. From your description of how | MW II's checker works, however, I'd assume that it could back | up--since it does an initial global spell check--if it was | desired to add such an option. Now that you mention it, you're probably right. Hmmm.... | The difference between us is | that you are talking about features and I am talking about use. | I've found that sometimes it is easier or at least more intuitive | to back up, see what spelling was chosen, think it over, etc. If | I can do that by hitting a single key, I'm more likely to use | it than if I have to go through several operations to get to | the same place. I don't see the difference between "features" and "use". I like to think that Claris hasn't fallen prey to the Galloping Featuritis that plagues MicroSoft. (flame > /dev/null) Of course, I don't claim to have an unbiased view. The more I think about it, the more I agree that it would be nice to back up, and the more I realize that it agrees with the Apple H.I.G. Maybe I should talk to people about this. | I guess my main complaint is one I've voiced in this discussion | group at least once before. I'm a programming type who comes to | the Mac from mainframes, CP/M, UNIX, and, fortunately, very short | experience with DOS. Some of the software I use on the Mac, I find | cumbersome to use because when I want to type a simple command | because I know exactly what I want to do, I can't. I maintain | that the gap between the ordinary Mac user interface and the | Mac programming interface is much too broad, that the lowest | common denominator is too low. I'm a programming type who came to the Mac from Apple II's and UNIX. My initial reaction to the Mac was "Jeez! What a toy! How do I program it? What's this mouse thing? What do you mean I *can't* program it? You call theis a computer?" Well, I can program it now, so it's a real computer now. :-) Seriously, though, after a two-year hiatus from the UNIX environment, I find myself instinctively reaching for the mouse when I'm inside emacs. I keep forgetting that there's no such thing as "selecting text". All I want to do is move *this* text *there*. On a Mac, that's click-drag- fanX-click-fanV. In emacs, that's lots of keystrokes to get to the beginning, lots of keystrokes to get to the end, lots of keystrokes to get to the destination, and only a couple keys to do the actual cutting and pasting. Which interface is "more advanced" is based on what you're used to, and nothing else. I refer you to a statement made by the president of DEC to the effect of "Well, yes, UNIX is easy to learn, but if you want to get any real work done, you'll use VMS." In my opinion, this is bullshit in its purest form, but then I grew up on UNIX. I don't think the "lowest common denominator" is too low. If anything, it's too HIGH. The average >U S E R< doesn't know *anything* about computers, and that is the customer that Apple's interface is attempting to reach. Leaving us programmers out in the cold? Well....I do think the interface is still in its childhood. There are certainly things that could be done better. But in practice, the only problems I have are in programming the machine, never in actually USING it. | It's fine to introduce new users to a very easy-to-use interface, | but what I'd appreciate in most of the software I use, is the | option of using a more advanced means of interaction which | does require that the user remember some commands without | going all the way into a Mac programming environment. MicroSoft agrees with you. Word will let you do *ANYTHING* from the keyboard (including pulling down menus). The result is just a mess. | In draw programs, I spend much too much time getting lines | to precisely intersect with my mouse. Wouldn't it be great | to be able to click into a command mode in which I instructed | the program to generate such an intersection? (Extend line | A until it just intersects with line B) That's an example | of what I mean by overuse of the mouse. Go look at Claris CAD. It lets you do exactly that, very easily, and believe it or not, with either the mouse alone or with a combination of mouse and keyboard. | In word processors, I spend too much time dragging to get | just the text I need. I'd prefer to have an option of | defining a text block with commands rather than the mouse. | Sometimes I have to click the mouse three or four times | to get it exactly where I want it to be, for instance for | an insertion point. I'd like to have an option to go into | a command mode where something like vi commands worked. Practice. I hate having to retype the same word five times because I keep hitting the wrong keys, but the more I type, the less that happens. Most word processors have some standard keyboard commands for moving through text and selecting text. (up arrow = previous line; shift- command-right-arrow = select to end of line; and so on.) At least, MWII does. | These are just a couple of examples. I could spend all | day and into next week dreaming up improvements in the | software I use every day. But I see the root problem | as the underlying design of the Mac interface and it's | rather rigid limitations on what I, as a user, can do. That's funny. Apple considers its interface better because it lets the user do MORE. The truth is simply that each interface is better equipped for different tasks, neither more rigidly controlled than the other. Apple's interface is easier to learn, more consistent overall, more aesthetically pleasing, and better for what I use it for than UNIX is. For me. In my opinion. This message has gotten far too long. This argument has been had before, and it will be had again, as long as there are new metaphors and people who don't want to use them. To each their own. Do what thou wilt. -- Jeff Erickson Claris Corporation | Birdie, birdie, in the sky, 408/987-7309 Applelink: Erickson4 | Why'd you do that in my eye? krazy@claris.com ames!claris!krazy | I won't fret, and I won't cry. "I'm a heppy, heppy ket!" | I'm just glad that cows don't fly.