Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:46157 comp.sys.ibm.pc:40399 comp.sys.mac:44784
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!ogicse!blake!gwangung
From: gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek...)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Xerox sues Apple!!! (GUI Design)
Message-ID: <5116@blake.acs.washington.edu>
Date: 20 Dec 89 07:39:10 GMT
References: <1989Dec19.193744.6301@uunet!unhd>
Reply-To: gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek...)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 46

In article <1989Dec19.193744.6301@uunet!unhd> rg@unhd.UUCP (Roger Gonzalez ) writes:
>Totally aside from the Mac/IBM debating, I'm curious about how people
>feel about GUI designs in general (you too, Amigoids).
>Don't design the GUI so that the user needs pixel-precision to do things!
>After my morning gallon of coffee, the last thing I want to do is line things
>up to pixels.  I like objects that recognize themselves as wholes, and
>especially auto-caddish features like "attach to endpoint".
>
>The Mac methodology seems to be "I am an object, and am associated with the
>tool that created me.  I won't let you use the wrong tool, so don't worry."
>PC's look at it notably differently.  They say "There are objects, and there 
>are tools.  Use any tool you want on any object.  It's up to you to figure
>out the right tool for the job."  I prefer the latter schema, because it
>is inherently more powerful.  More dangerous, but more powerful.  In addition,
>I think its closer to the way that people think.  I may be wrong about this

	No flames, but I think you are.  See, what schema is more USEFUL to
a particular individual (NOT more powerful; that's a BIG difference) depends
on the situation the individual sees him/herself in.  Now I'll bashfully beat
my own drum and say that I was involved in a minor study or two ialong these
lines, but I think the principle is valid.  

	The way people think depends on how they're viewing the situation.  For
a LOT of people, they'll WANT the constraints the Mac interface imposes---they
don't care what kind of power is available to them, they just want to do the 
single specific thing they NEED to do RIGHT NOW.  Learning the internal logic
of a program to do that single specific thing won't appeal to them if they
don't want to take a whole lot of time.

	On the other hand, folks who see themselves USING the program and see
the current task as a steppingstone for further activities won't mind going
through the steps and the hassles of a PC-type interface.  They DO end up
doing (usually) more powerful things, but I think there are more people in
the former camp than at the latter.







-- 
Roger Tang, Member
Uncle Bonsai Memorial Fan Club
American Flag Disposal Unit #3245, Chonk Moonhunters chapter
gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu