Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hoptoad!tim
From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Xerox sues Apple!
Message-ID: <9375@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: 22 Dec 89 00:29:26 GMT
References: <172@comcon.UUCP> <7326@ficc.uu.net> <9320@hoptoad.uucp> <7340@ficc.uu.net>
Reply-To: tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney)
Organization: Eclectic Software, San Francisco
Lines: 109

In article <9320@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
>> Spoken like a true techno-nerd, Peter.

In article <7340@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>Nothing like starting an argument off with an insult to promote rational
>discussion.

Sorry, I was under the impression that you were the same Peter da Silva
who said on gnu.misc.discuss last week, "I'm a computer nerd. And proud
of it."

>> I have personally observed
>> highly intelligent and skilled UNIX programmers who could not remember
>> from one minute to the next what each button on their three-button
>> mouse did.
>
>So, because X-windows has a horrible user interface then multi-button
>mice are bad. Have a look at some systems that use multiple buttons
>consistently, like the Xerox Star or the Amiga.

Actually, my only experience with multi-button mice is on Suns, as an
employee of the Information Technology Center at C-MU and at the TOPS
division of Sun.

>> People find it intrinsically easier to keep mental distinctions
>> straight if there are significant differences between the things
>
>Like maybe each key on the keyboard had a different shape?

Keyboards *are* hard to learn.  Most people take a long time to learn
to type with acceptable speed and accuracy.  But at least the keys that
are of different type from the others (such as shift, control, etc.) do
have distinctive shapes and locations, and all the keys have clear
labels as to their function.  (The right lower corner is a distinctive
location; where the "h" and "t" keys are is not.)  If multiple-button
mice had iconic or textual labels on the buttons, they would be easier
to use.

>I think you have oberved a phenomenon in isolation and applied your
>prejudices (learned from the Macintosh marketing literature) to it,
>rather than trying to figure out what the real problem was.

Bullshit.

>> Part of the real-world metaphor approach to improving learning curves.
>> When working with a file on a real desktop, one almost always brings it
>> to the top of the stack first.
>
>Bt not always. And there are two seperate actions involved. On my desktop,
>I sometimes slide something out from the bottom of a pile a few inches. I
>can't do thet on the Mac.

If all you want to do is look at it, you can do that on the Mac as
well.  I suggest that the number of time someone wants to make marks on
a sheet of paper which is not on the top of its stack on the desktop is
vanishingly small.

>> [double-clicking]
>
>On the Xerox Star you run an application by dropping a document into a
>processor (mailbox, editor, printer, whatever). This is much more intuitive
>than double-clicking.

Agreed; unfortunately, it can also be much less ergonomically efficient.

>> You really haven't looked into the
>> psychological basis of graphical interfaces at all, have you?
>
>Right. Just because I don't agree with you I must not have thought about it.

No: just because you don't refer to those principles, you must not have
thought about them.

>> It seems your approach is simple.  "If the Mac uses it, I'm against it."
>
>Not at all. There are *other* aspects of the Apple UI that are nice.
>Having scroll bars that vary in size according to the percentage of the
>objects displayed is nice.

Mac scroll bars do not vary in size except with the size of the window;
that is, they fill the left or bottom edge of the window regardless of
its size.  Perhaps you are referring to the variable position of the
thumb?

>Click-and-drag for rubber-band lines is nice.

I don't believe this was a Mac innovation.  In fact, didn't Sketchpad
do almost exactly the same thing?  You might as well say you like the
fact that the Mac has a keyboard.

>Automatically detecting diskette insertion is nice.

Actually, I'd say that *not* detecting them is stupid.  It's a pretty
obvious thing to do for the user, not really deserving of praise.

>But the single-button mouse, and the kludges necessary to use it, isn't.

I don't think they're kludges.  I trust you're aware that there is a
sort of "conversion shock" in switching from one interface to another;
one has always taken it for granted that the previously learned
interface was the "right way", so this new way must be the wrong way,
because of the overhead it imposes on one's mind.  It is always
frustrating to have to learn new ways of doing things.  I have to
wonder if this kind of shock isn't a factor here.
-- 
Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com

"Every institution I've ever been associated with has tried to screw me."
	-- Stephen Wolfram