Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!samsung!think!ames!ncar!stout.UCAR.EDU!thor
From: thor@stout.UCAR.EDU (Rich Neitzel)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.news
Subject: Re: Is SUN a "PURE PLAYER" in window systems - SunView or OpenWindows???
Message-ID: <5728@ncar.ucar.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 89 14:45:55 GMT
References: <4290@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <8912162135.AA03025@iris.rand.org>
Sender: news@ncar.ucar.edu
Reply-To: thor@thor.UCAR.EDU (Rich Neitzel)
Organization: ncar
Lines: 69

> 
> The real goal is to have the same user interface on every computer,
> not just on Unix workstations running the X  window system.
> 
> Remember the analogy of dashboards - you can get inside any car and
> drive it away.  No so with computers.
> 
Sigh! I can't stand it any longer. This is a very bad analogy in my
opinion. Yes, I can drive any car car intended for the U.S. market, but
the level of commonality is no where near the level that as proposed by
the "one user interface claim". I own two cars, made the same year by
the same firm and here is a partial list of the differences in dashboard
layout- 

1> One has the dimmer switch on a lever on the steering column, the
other has a foot switch.

2> One has the gear selection lever on the steering column, the other is
floor mounted. 

3> One has only simple idiot lights that turn red to indicate a problem,
the other has analog gauges.

4> The fuel level gauges are on opposite sides of the speedometer. 

5> One has a true toggle switch for the rear defroster, the other has a
momentary button. Further, the toggle swicth lights up whle the
defroster is on, the other has no indicator.

6> On one the heater speed controls are aligned horizontally and placed
below and to the right of the temperature control. On the other the
speed control is vertically aligned and to the left of the temperature control.

I could go on with many more examples of how these two vehicles differ
in their control interfaces, but I think the point is clear - despite
all the overblown hype about consistent user interfaces and the claims
that these are common outside of computing, the truth is quite the
opposite. In few cases are there universal interfaces for functions that
are even moderately complex. Further, it is rare for users to find this
a limitation or barrier to their use of the item in question. When was
the last time anyone heard a serious complaint that the dashboard of
their Escort was not identical in layout and function to the dashboard
in their Civic? I suspect that no reading this has any trouble using an
elevator, but there are obviously no standards in their control design,
not even in which direction the floor numbers soon run - highest at the
bottom, lowest, etc.

All this talk about commonality of "look & feel" is simply an attempt to
evade the real issue in the design of user interfaces - does the
interface for THIS application adequate suit the conditions of use,
level of user skill and functionality required to perform the job?
Common user interfsces simply make the life of developer easier by
allowing one to put on any interface, cklaim that this is good because
it is "standard" and walk away. No thought or concern about reality required! 

Don't force interface applications into a bed of Procrustes (sp?)! 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
			Richard Neitzel
			National Center For Atmospheric Research
			Box 3000
			Boulder, CO 80307-3000
			303-497-2057

			thor@thor.ucar.edu

    	Torren med sitt skjegg		Thor with the beard
    	lokkar borni under sole-vegg	calls the children to the sunny wall
    	Gjo'i med sitt shinn		Gjo with the pelts
    	jagar borni inn.		chases the children in.