Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!rutgers!att!cbnewse!macduff
From: macduff@cbnewse.ATT.COM (Roger R. Espinosa)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Xerox sues Apple!!! (GUI Design)
Summary: MS-DOS/ASCII interfaces
	 An observation
Message-ID: <12267@cbnewse.ATT.COM>
Date: 20 Dec 89 22:30:55 GMT
References: <1989Dec19.193744.6301@uunet!unhd> <5116@blake.acs.washington.edu> <2885@d75.UUCP>
Organization: The Rabbit Corps
Lines: 120

In article <2885@d75.UUCP>, robin@sabre.uucp (Robin D. Wilson/1000000) writes:
> In article <5116@blake.acs.washington.edu> gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek...) writes:
> >In article <1989Dec19.193744.6301@uunet!unhd> rg@unhd.UUCP (Roger Gonzalez ) writes:
> 
> >	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.
> 
> Actually, MOST good Mac / Amiga / GUI programs are at least as powerful, and
> usually moreso than their MSDOS / PC-type interface counterparts.  The 
> difference is in the ease of getting to that particular advanced function at
> any given moment.  The GUI's have a much quicker learning curve, so in the 
> beginning the user can get to the advanced features faster (he doesn't have to
> read as many pages in the manual).  Later, this time is reduced because the 
> PC-user has begun to learn more about his/her software, and can figure out
> how to accomplish several tasks with one extended command; however, the Mac /
> Amiga / GUI user in the same time period has learned the shortcuts available
> to him/her during the same time period -- which are probably not as 
> individually powerful as the extend commands of the PC-type interface, but 
> collectively are equal or more powerful; they just take longer to enact.

Are we limiting our discussions only to Finder/DOS-type commands? It seems
like we teeter from talking about the Finder or to the MS-DOS CLI (likewise
with the Amiga's dual interface).

Something about this bothers me, and it's that application-wise, MS-DOS
programs aren't CLI-oriented, either.  Okay, let's broaden that "MS-DOS"
to include CLI-based OSs, which would bring in the venerable Apple //c
(my original machine).

In ProDOS, the OS was CLI (not UNIX, but it was better than "LOAD "$",8,1"
:-).  But none of the programs were CLI-oriented.  The word processors
had menus (type E for Edit, P for Print...).  Same goes for MS-DOS WPs,
at least the one's I've seen.

A good Mac program allows for command-key equivalents.  Lots of them. So
that once the user feels comfortable with a program, s/he can choose not
to use the mouse if they don't want to.  With macro packages becoming so
popular, a user can *customize* (oo, that horrid anti-Mac word :-) things
to their heart's content, thereby avoiding the mouse as much as possible.

> 
> Clearly, the best solution is to offer either 1: both interfaces like on the
> Amiga -- which even though it is more inconsistant in the GUI than a Mac, it
> is far more consistant than any MSDOS / PC-type counterpart.  Or, 2: allow
> for more command combination in the GUI, and more customizable Menus/commands.
> Many Mac / Amiga / Xwindows / GUIs offer some degree of user customization,
> but the true power of the GUI will be limited until complete user customization

See, here I differ.  Yes, a DOS-type-CLI would be nice to have at times.
But is this the biggest concern?  How do you manage multi-tasking in a 
pure-CLI environment?  We don't even do that in UNIX anymore, what with
windowing terminals and everything.  And once you use a windowing-UNIX
terminal, it's *damn* hard to go back to straight 24-lines, 80-columns,
that's for sure.

For dealing with the DOS and files, yes, I'd have to say the Amiga way is
very nice.  MPW is a trip (I love it), but heck, it does take up a whole
Meg o' memory, and this doesn't count as a viable solution.

BUT, if we're talking about GUIs in *general*...is there really any difference
in the interface of the Mac, or , say, Turbo Pascal on the PC? You can have
plain old ASCII menus dropping from the top of the screen, right? What I
like about my Mac (and what I haven't seen on the Amiga - but I could very
well (and hope I am) be mistaken) is that the GUI is *consistent* (like you
said) throught MANY applications.  The experience from one is directly
transferable (most of the time) to another application/tool/etc.

Perfect? Nah, I won't say that.  It would be nice to have the information
transferable, too, but System 7.0 is working towards that.  Like these
UNIX-type windows I'm working with now (and used to on Apollos) - nice for
multi-tasking, but *useless* for transferring information.


> can be implemented.  This will require programmers to overcome the problem
> of "too much customization", where users customize themselves out of being able
> to use new software, because they have to customize it to their set-up before
> they can use it, and to customize it they have to spend hours with the manual.

Shouldn't the current push toward OOPs help this customization business? If
the programmer doesn't have to worry about things as a whole, but only 
the objects, and the message they get? (Roger's knowledge of OOP theory = 
0.0000005; I claim nothing.)

> 
> Finally, we must ask ourselves, what are computers good for?  Are they intended
> for programmers, and sysadmin types -- who need to know how to take it apart
> and put it back together -- or are they intended for business people, students
> housewives and secretaries?  If we choose the first proposition computers will
> die off eventually, because people will one-day realize that building a machine
> thats only purpose is to build a newer and better version of itself still gives
> you a net result of 1 useless machine (even though it may be better, stronger
> faster, than ever before it is still around to build a new version of itself).
> One the other hand, the computer is really intended to be used by everyone but
> "computer people".  In this respect, it must be useful from the outset.  If

THIS alone is probably why I bought the Mac.  Because IMHO, it was the
best example of a "people's appliance computer" around.  Which is the way I
want to see computers head (mainly because I'm sick of helping my non-
programming-type friends, and have them say, "Oh, you're *so* lucky to have
majored in Computer Science." Yep. 5 years to learn to read a manual. :-).
The Apple METHODOLOGY is what makes it work; you can slap GUIs all over
the place (like on the early Apple IIGS), but if everything is random,
and nobody follows any consistent guidelines, YOU'RE DARN RIGHT that GUI
is just getting in the way.  It's kind of like ... vsh (the visual shell,
which turned UNIX into a ASCII-based menu-system. Ugh. (IMHO, he types
quickly...))

> 
> I think??... ;-)
> +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> |The views expressed herein, are the sole responsibility of the typist at hand|
> +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Ditto.


Roger
rre@ihlpn.ATT.COM