Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!THE!KARMA From: YABLONSKY@BIOVAX.BITNET (Michael D Yablonsky Dept of Molecular Karma at the Waksman Institute Rutgers University) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.info-gcg Subject: Re: User Interface Message-ID: Date: 12 Feb 90 20:14:00 GMT Sender: "INFO-GCG: GCG Genetics Software Discussion" Reply-To: "Michael D Yablonsky Dept of Molecular Karma at the Waksman Institute Rutgers University" Lines: 60 Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway X-VMS-To: IN%"info-gcg@utoronto" Ellis Golub writes: \At the risk of adding even more verbiage to the fire, I would like \to endorse those contributors, alas few in number, who have \remedied imagined deficiencies in the GCG system by writing \supplementary code, command procedures or modifying existing \code. It must be clear to all by now that each site has its own \unique problems, which require personalized solutions. In fact, \different groups on the same system may require separate interfaces \for optimum utilization. One of the best features of the GCG system \is that it can be customized. Anyone who has suffered under the rigors \of a more "integrated" package will certainly applaud the flexibility \and access available with GCG. These are all wonderful points if you are located at a site where your sysops will do such things for you. Perhaps being at a site with an apparently "raw" GCG package I have a different perspective. I don't feel that there are "imagined deficiencies". Personally I don't find the package horribly unmanagable. I just look back at the learning process (often inspired by the seemingly nutty questions of real neophytes) and feel that it could have been (and can be) made simpler and more pleasant. There is no reason for an application (which is designed for biologists) to arrive without any sort of "normal language" tutorial. I've seen several references here to the fact that you can't get the bench scientists to read the help etc. I think that the authors could provide something to explain "life with VMS" or the basics of sequence assembly or searching in a format designed to avoid putting the biologist into a deep sleep or computer-ese induced coma (thank you Lisa). Even a decent font in the manual would be an improvement. I just want to see more consideration for the semi-computer literates out there. (I think that working with these macs has warped my sense of computing.) And I don't like to see attitudes like this... \Let's not burden this already good system with a heavy "user friendly" \layer of I/O. Expansion and improvement of the algorithms and \implementations is a better use of the resources of the GCG group. \Let's learn to customize for our own sites, and stop tying to impose \a unified architecture in everybody. Hell, why be friendly to users, they just come up to my office to bother me, take up my time. Now if you personally are "user friendly" enough to make all the "separate interfaces" and "personalized solutions" great!!! But how about people who aren't at your site!!! People who have sysops who don't read this digest, don't understand sequencing or biology period???? People who don't have access to special seminars on how to do this or that??? It is for this reason that the extra layer of I/O should be available. Guaranteed customization, tutoring and support by local sysops is not included as part of the package, as far as I know. Mike Yablonsky Yablonsky@mbcl.rutgers.edu PS, Udo, this might be considered a flame. Who would want these opinions??? Certainly not Rutgers University.