"Todd L. Miller" wrote:
> > mouse navigated and operated Frames are the most common and well
> > known way of communicating with an application.
>
> This does not, however, mean that it's /best/ way.
Definitely not, see below:
> The real world metaphor is usually not the one you want to use
> in designing an application, and many people fail to remember this.
> (See http://www.iarchitect.com/mshame.htm for a few examples of why.)
> In general, my computer can do things myRealWorldObject can only
> dream of, and make possible things easier. Playlists are a good
> example of the latter, where one can drag & drop song titles to order
> them, something, so far as I'm aware, that one can't do even on the
> rare stereos that /have/ playlists. With respect to the former,
> nobody would dream of writing a text editor today with the
> functionality of only a typewriter, because there are so many things
> the computer can do that the typewriter can't.
Ah, you have misunderstood my words... I do not mean that we should
strive to make application mimic real world object, I am saying that the
*interface* to applications should be the best possible blending into
the real world. Speech is better than gestures (mouse), which in turn is
better than typing. Until natural language is understood by computers,
the mouse is the next best thing (IMHO, of course!)
> <snip> I can't add a column of numbers up by writing '=ADD(A1,A10)' at
> the bottom; and so on.
That's why we need media that with the same effort as typing
'=ADD(A1,A10)' give more information. The combination of a monitor and a
mouse gives hundreds of times more information than a keyboard alone, e?
> The sense of an interface being intuitive is that it's consistent
> enough that you can predict how to do something, what will happen when
> you do it, and that everything you might want to do is allowed.
Precisely... Would it not be nice to find yourself in a VR world where
you can literally stick your finger in between the columns, and make
space for an extra column?
> (Now that I think about it, a queue-based cut/copy/paste could come in
> really handy...)
True, does any one know of an OS or clipboard manager that can do this?
Just by the way.
> Because Apple's single button mouse has fewer actions, it's more
> intuitive in the sense of having fewer rules governing its usage;
> conversely it could also be argued that increasing the number of ways
> in which one can interact with things -- (possibly reducing the rules
> per action) -- is a trade-off of sufficient importance in allowing one
> to do more things -- 'everything that you might want to do' -- to be
> worthwhile.
Hmm... If you think of the mouse as an extension of your hand when you
are using it, though, and say your hand has all five fingers, then could
you not be very comfortable with five buttons. OK, maybe since the
nerves of the palm are complicated we need a neurologist to tell us
whether two or three buttons are useful, but you get what I mean, right?
> (For example, and leaving aside for the moment the question of
> whether or not context-sensitive menus are intuitive -- is it more
> intuitive to access a CSM with a mouse button which (almost) never
> means anything else, or with and action -- click and hold -- which
> means different things depending on if you move the mouse or not?
I believe that if you can associate click-and-hold with imminent
drag-and-drop, then this would work universally, for all components of a
UI that are mobile.
> Most of the burden of intuitive interface rests with the
> application, rather than the operating system;
Yet, as engineers of an operating system with its UI, we must help users
by promoting a *consistent* UI across all applications. Is there anybody
reading this e-mail that has not had at least a little trouble using
WinAmp controls? Is there anybody here who could predict from start what
each WinAmp control did? WinAmp is a fantastic application, but its UI
is *very* complicated. Contrary to that, I can't say I ever had trouble
guessing what each button does on the Netscape toolbar, and Netscape is
a fantastic application as well...
Fortunately, Sun has provided a few neat and - possibly - beautiful
defaults for component structure, and look & feel. I think it is a very
good idea, and it is an idea which we have already seen the consequences
of its absence in Linux... True, the graphical UI will eventually be
selected arbitrarily, but Sun's Swing is so general and serves so many
people that I believe would be extremely useful as the default UI of JOS
and all Java applications.
> In sum: shouldn't a next-generation OS have a next-generation
> interface?
It should have a stable and familiar interface to help first time users,
at least. But this is not the core part of the OS, it's the core part of
its environment. Ages ago there were several discussions on having JOS
load an "jos.ui.graphical.environment.Environment" class during startup,
which will provide the hard peers for graphics (on a Screen object).
Inside that environment a "jos.ui.graphical.GraphicalShell" can be
loaded, something like Finder on the Mac and Explorer on Windows.
> P.S. Regarding the ideal interfaces you suggested -- I believe that
> all of them are AI-complete problems, at the least...
Unfortunately, they are... But that's the beauty of designing them!
--
"Learn from others' mistakes, for you won't live long
enough to make them all yourself..."
________________________________________________________________________
[EMAIL: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] [URL: http://www.outworld.org/people/al]
[TEL1: (30) +31 422392] [TEL2: (30) +31 428154] [CELL: (30) +937 110247]
[ADDRESS: 14 Argonafton St., Kalamaria, 551 31, Thessaloniki, Greece GR]
PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME ANY UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL EMAIL [DSS: 0xDBEF8ECC]
_______________________________________________
Kernel maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://jos.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
