Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:46175 comp.sys.ibm.pc:40431 comp.sys.mac:44813
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ibmchs!auschs!d75!sabre!robin
From: robin@sabre.uucp (Robin D. Wilson/1000000)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Xerox sues Apple!!! (GUI Design)
Message-ID: <2885@d75.UUCP>
Date: 20 Dec 89 17:49:17 GMT
References: <1989Dec19.193744.6301@uunet!unhd> <5116@blake.acs.washington.edu>
Sender: news@d75.UUCP
Reply-To: robin@reed.UUCP (Robin D. Wilson/1000000)
Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin, TX
Lines: 69

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:
>>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

>[Stuff deleted about how most people want to getthe job done now, so GUI's are
> more useful to them.]

>	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.

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
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.

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
I buy a T.V. and have to go to school to learn how to turn it on, and then
change channels, and then adjust the volume, etc. I will not find it effort
worth the rewards.  The same applies to productivity enhancing devices such as
computers.  If it takes me a month of intensive study to learn how to use it, 
I could have done 1 month's worth of real work instead.


I think??... ;-)
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|The views expressed herein, are the sole responsibility of the typist at hand|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|USNail:                               UUCP:                                  |
|2323 Wells Branch Pkwy., #G107        cs.utexas.edu!romp!ibmchs!auschs\      |
|Austin, TX  78728                     !sabre.austin.ibm.com!robin            |
|Home: (512)251-6889                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<-MUST BE INCLUDED|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+