Geoff Canyon wrote:
>
> >andu wrote:
> >>
> >> This idea
> >> that the language should be easily understood (with no effort at all) by
> >> "the average person" aka "us" is total crap.
> >
> >I heard this same retort ten years ago from a rabid DOS user who sneered
> >at anyone who used a GUI.
>
> That doesn't have any relevance to the point being made.
Well, the point I was trying to make was: should a tool be as easy to
use as possible, by as many people as possible, or should it require
specialized training and obscure knowledge? This particular DOS user
sneered at anyone who didn't want to learn an arcane command line
structure; she claimed the only "real" computer users were those who
could master it. Meanwhile the rest of the world went on to actually USE
computers by adopting a graphical user interface.
I think MetaCard cannot afford the kind of elitism that requires too
much arcane specialized knowledge. I'm not saying NO specialized
knowledge; anyone who wants to learn a tool as complex as MetaCard is
going to have to absorb a lot of new information and become proficient
with a new language and concepts. All I'm saying is that the learning
curve will be easier (and much less frustrating for newcomers) if
readily-understood, common terms are used whenever possible. I also
think that this is Scott's goal too, based on his comments on the xtalk
list. Naturally if there are no equivalent common-use terms available,
then specialized terms need to be used. I have no problem with that.
> That said, we should still try to to come to a consensus on language
> issues, in order to keep the language as useful as possible.
I agree, though Andu does make a good point that a committee is one of
the least efficient ways to make a decision.
Someone else mentioned a music analogy. I don't think that MetaCard can
play notes the way HyperCard does. But to use it as an example for this
discussion, in HyperCard the note to be played is represented by a
letter name from the keyboard:
play "harpsichord" tempo 400 a b c a b c
This syntax does require some musical knowledge -- you have to know that
"tempo" refers to the speed and you have to know where on a keyboard the
letter names are.
But "tempo" is a pretty well understood word. It is in common usage
outside of the musical field. And setting a tempo according to a numeric
value (400, 1200, etc.) can be easily extrapolated by just about anyone.
Suppose instead of "tempo" you had to choose from a variety of specific
notations instead:
tempo "largo"
tempo "prestissimo"
tempo "allegro"
etc.
This would require quite a bit more musical knowledge and encroaches
into the "specialized" area (non-English speakers would have less
trouble with these though.)
Now, suppose that you could not use letter names to represent notes.
Suppose instead you had to set a key signature first and then use the
"do re mi" notation (which would also require specialized knowledge of
what a "key signature" is):
play "harpsichord" key "A min" tempo "largo" do re mi do re mi
Way harder, but perfectly valid. The difference is, someone with only a
passing knowledge of musical notation could use the first syntax fairly
readily. If the last syntax were required, only more
professionally-trained musicians could use it, and even for them, it
would still be tedious to translate to xtalk.
Shouldn't MetaCard maintain the easiest possible syntax? Wouldn't that
allow new users to feel more comfortable right away, and expand their
acceptance of the product? How much specialized knowledge should
MetaCard require?
At the risk of going on too long: look at "socket" for another example.
Here is a case where there isn't really a common-use term. The internet
has had to invent words of its own. In this case, the most commonly-used
term within the field is being used. This is a good choice.
I withdraw my "blendlevel" complaint, actually. After Scott Rossi's
explanation, it makes more sense. The above is more a generic response
to the concept of language invention. To be honest, I already think
Scott Raney takes all this into consideration before choosing a new
term. But there are some cases where group input is valuable -- we got
the vague terminology "getFolder()" changed to a more informative
"getSpecialFolder()" by discussing the terms on the xtalk list.
Sometimes group input is helpful.
Sorry for the long post.
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HyperActive Software | 612-724-1596
Custom hypermedia solutions | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.
