Although I know that this is not likely to produce any improvement in
the ambiguous Jmol interface (and those that donate their time to a
project are free to decide in what areas they will direct their
effort), I feel that William Reusch's posting should not go without
comment. He wrote:
I am mildly surprised by the attention many are giving to the Jmol
frank. I find it relatively unobtrusive, and when it gets in the
way of
a presentation it is easily removed by a script. Its primary
purpose is
to indicate that the display is from Jmol. I write chiefly for
undergraduates, most of whom just wish to observe the model and do not
care to interact via the menu. I introduce the use of Jmol by a brief
introduction in which the two methods of opening the menu (frank & key
combination) are described. Advanced users should read the
documentation.
This exemplifies a divide between those on the one hand who feel that
software like Jmol should only be used by advanced users who read the
documentation or students who are told exactly what to do, and those
on the other hand who feel that if you put a Jmol applet on your web
page you want it to be usable in the most intuitive way possible by
whoever is interested in topic it is used to illustrate, someone who
is unlikely to read any documentation (even if there was a pdf file
one could download) and cannot be lectured to.
I am surprised (but only mildly) that those on the other side of this
divide do not recognize that people such as me have a fundamentally
different attitude from them.
Finally, I think it is avoiding the issue to say that the "primary
purpose of the logo is to indicate that the display is Jmol". The
original enquirer clearly thought it was the --only-- purpose of the
logo, and had to be told that removing it would entail removing its
second purpose as target for a drop-down menu. The people on my side
of the divide - those who have a formal training in human computer
interface design and those who just have a feel for a usable
interface - would regard the fact that original poster was unaware of
the dual purpose as damning evidence that the interface is defective.
I would emphasize that the point of this message is not to criticize
William Reusch's position on the use of Jmol (although I obviously
disagree with it) but to make it clear to him and others that there
are basic differences in outlook of those interested in using Jmol.
David
___________________________________________________
Dr. David P. Leader, Faculty of Biomedical & Life Sciences,
University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
Phone: +44 (0)141 330 5905
http://doolittle.ibls.gla.ac.uk/leader
http://motif.gla.ac.uk/
The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401
___________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
_______________________________________________
Jmol-users mailing list
Jmol-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users
