Jacqueline Landman Gay wrote:
>
> 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?
Actually the point you made in your first message on the issue was that
some terminology was foreign to "you" and you decided to enforce your
"demand" to Scott to change it by playing the "average user" and "us"
card.
To that I answered that over generalizing is by default wrong and there
are language/vocabulary limitations as well, for all of "us". In your
reply to my post you just jumped to another generalization: whoever
disagrees with your point is in that "DOS" category. I see a pattern.
Programming (scripting) *does* require specialized knowledge and there
is no such thing as "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.
Right, Scott should only consult you (as the archetypal average user).
>
> 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?
For a telephone book not much. Easiest possible syntax and specialized
knowledge have nothing in common.
>
> 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.
Not really a good example. I answerd many questions on the list as to
what are sockets and what do you do with them.
>
> 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.
Indeed, "demanding" Scott to change this, this and that because you have
a hard time memorizing it as in:
"Everyone knows what "transparency" means, many programs use
it, and I'm baffled at why MetaCard doesn't use it too. I'd like to see
it changed. Why use something obscure when a common term would be more
understandable and require less tech support? Or, if "blendlevel" is set
in stone, then at least use the word "transparency" in the docs so that
people can make the association. Meaningful terminology is an easy way
to avoid some of the useability criticism that MetaCard often gets, and
"blendlevel" isn't self-explanatory or memorable. Scott?"
...is your other point of view.
Actually since you came to this list you mostly complained about your
hardship in adapting your hypertalk skills, basically implying that
Metacard be changed to match your knowledge.
>
> Sorry for the long post.
>
> --
> Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> HyperActive Software | 612-724-1596
> Custom hypermedia solutions | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
>
Andu
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.
