HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lee@sq.sq.com (Liam R. E. Quin)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,comp.windows.misc,comp.windows.news,comp.windows.x,comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: GUIs Considered Harmful
Date: 29 Aug 92 23:29:24 GMT
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
X-Feet: bare

"David Herron" <david@twg.com> writes:
> Lots of people point at 3d borders on widgets and try to make fun of them.
> Look at it from the other slant for a moment.. throw away the 3d borders
> and use a Mac (pre System 7) or something written with Athena Widgets.
> How does the user tell the difference between a button and a text entry 
> box?  [...]

zwicky@erg.sri.com (Elizabeth Zwicky) writes:
> I don't make fun of 3d borders; I deprecate them. Why does sunken=text
> and raised=button? Shouldn't sunken be a depressed button? (In fact,
> sunken often *is* a depressed button.) Couldn't
> this be done with *much* greater clarity by some means other than fake
> 3d? Like, for instance, the text areas have lines under them just like
> the lines on a form where you're supposed to write things.

The OPEN LOOK UI underlines text fields instead of using sunken or raised
boxes or ovals or whatever.  It works.

> In the old NeWS toolkit, you had checkboxes. When they were selected,
> they had great big check marks in them. I comprehend this.

Again the OPEN LOOK GUI has tick-boxes (or check-boxes or whatever you want
to call them).  And they work well.

I join Elizabeth Zwicky and other posters in being unable to remember whether
things are selected or deselected in Motif or Microsoft Windows.

I sometimes have the same problem with the OPEN LOOK GUI toggles - the things
that are sometimes called radio buttons, apparently because of old-fashioned
American car radios - but usually it's easy because it's the `pressed' one
that's selected, and there is a word under it.  The ticked boxes present no
problems at all, and neither do the text fields.

I think the difference is that the OPEN LOOK UI was designed.  Very carefully.
By people with experience.  And _then_ implemented.  Motif was implemented
without any real specification, as I understand it, and it shows.

But I don't think that any of the User Interfaces out there - NeWS, OPEN LOOK,
OSF/Motif, Mac System 7, Athena, NextStep, I don't think _any_ of them are at
the point at which I'd say `If computer development stopped here it'd be OK'.

It's still early days.

Lee

-- 
Liam Quin, lee@sq.com, SoftQuad, Toronto, 416 239-4801; the barefoot programmer
  lq-text (Unix text retrieval package) mailing list: lq-text-request@sq.com
  latest released version: 1.10; ftp: ftp.cs.toronto.edu in directory: pub
  If Adultery is for Adults, is Juvenal for Juveniles?
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,comp.windows.misc,comp.windows.news,comp.windows.x,comp.human-factors
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: GUIs Considered Harmful
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:22:15 GMT

In article <NEERI.92Aug25180329@iis.ethz.ch> neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
> Gee, if even *Amiga* users start complaining about chrome, maybe it's time for
> Apple to cut back :-)

Hey, the Amiga GUI is about as low-chrome as you can get and still have it be
a graphic user interface.

Well, no, that's not actually true. The 3b1 User Agent, the Blit, 8 1/2, and
so on have a little less chrome. But it's still pretty spare.
-- 
Peter da Silva                                               `-_-'
$ EDIT/TECO LOVE                                              'U` 
%TECO-W-OLDJOKE Not war?                        Have you hugged your wolf today?
Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp.      Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012       +1 713 274 5180
Xref: sparky alt.religion.computers:616 comp.human-factors:1963 comp.windows.misc:1254 comp.windows.news:567 comp.windows.x:15912
From: khera@cs.duke.edu (Vivek Khera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,comp.human-factors,comp.windows.misc,comp.windows.news,comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Help for thesis
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:33:33 GMT
	<1992Aug29.035241.18891@u.washington.edu>
	<9224419.3450@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Followup-To: alt.religion.computers
Organization: Duke University CS Dept., Durham, NC
In-reply-to: tjm@ecr.mu.oz.au's message of 31 Aug 92 09:29:13 GMT
X-Md4-Signature: f4f12171bf15bd02f2cc1586a5769f92

In article <9224419.3450@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> tjm@ecr.mu.oz.au (Trefor_John MORGAN) writes:

   I am currently doing a final year thesis (in Elec Eng) on man-machine
   interfaces, I was wondering if anyone could mail me information on the
   following areas:

	   -history of the development of the original Mac system
		   (and the apple machine that preceded the Mac
		    but failed in the market.)

that would be the Lisa, which when it came out, was less powerful than
the original Mac and cost US$10,000.  it was neat, though.  but if you
want the "original", go look at the work done at Xerox PARC.  Their
commercial system, the Xerox Star, was about the best interface I ever
used for document processing.  absolutely amazing integration between
applications.  the mac still holds nothing to it, except a plethora of
available programs.

	   -your opinions on GUI (what makes a good GUI)

the option to do things the GUI programmer didn't anticipate---
primarily a way to escape to a macro/programming language underneath.


good luck on your thesis.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vivek Khera, Gradual Student/Systems Guy  Department of Computer Science
Internet:   khera@cs.duke.edu             Box 90129
            (MIME mail accepted)          Durham, NC 27708-0129 (919)660-6528
Xref: sparky alt.religion.computers:672 comp.human-factors:2049 comp.windows.misc:1317 comp.windows.news:617 comp.windows.x:16125
From: stank@snow.tek.com (Stan Kalinowski)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,comp.human-factors,comp.windows.misc,comp.windows.news
Subject: Re: GUIs Considered Harmful
Keywords: nn
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:05:08 GMT
Followup-To: alt.religion.computers,comp.human-factors,comp.windows.misc
Organization: /usr/ens/etc/organization

This discussion has drifted far away from the subject of Sun NeWS,
please remove "comp.windows.news" from the Newsgroups line when you
respond to this subject.


--
US Mail: Stan Kalinowski, Tektronix, Inc., Network Displays Division
         PO Box 1000, MS 60-850, Wilsonville OR 97070   Phone:(503)-685-2458
e-mail:  {ucbvax,decvax,allegra,uw-beaver}!tektronix!orca!stank
    or   stank@orca.WV.TEK.COM
Xref: sparky alt.religion.computers:648 comp.windows.misc:1296 comp.windows.news:598 comp.windows.x:16067 comp.human-factors:2014
From: david@gdstech.grumman.com (David Nettles)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,comp.windows.misc,comp.windows.news,comp.windows.x,comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: GUIs Considered Harmful
Date: 1 Sep 92 14:50:34 GMT
Reply-To: david@gdstech.UUCP (David Nettles)
Organization: Grumman Data Systems-Woodbury

In article <NEERI.92Aug25180329@iis.ethz.ch> neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
>In article <id.Q4NS.1SE@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>The Mac GUI is a moderately good one. It used to be quite good (though not up
>>to the quality of the Star), but it's grown a *lot* of chrome in the past 6 or
>>so years.
>
>Gee, if even *Amiga* users start complaining about chrome, maybe it's time for
>Apple to cut back :-)
>
>Matthias
>
>-----
>Matthias Neeracher                                   neeri@iis.ethz.ch
>   "I'm set free to find a new illusion" -- Velvet Underground


What is "chrome"?
-- 
****************************************************************************
   David E. Nettles
   Internet: david@gdstech.grumman.com
   Grumman Data Systems
From: bagwill@swe.ncsl.nist.gov (Bob &)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: GUIs Considered Harmful
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:45:57 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

skok@itwds1.energietechnik.uni-stuttgart.de (Holger Skok) writes:
: In article <1992Sep2.162110.15032@cas.org> lvirden@cas.org (Larry W. Virden) writes:
: Yeah, not a bad idea. But STANDARDIZE it!
: 
: It's bad enough to have to learn different sets of commands for
: different OS's. But it's far worse to have to grapple with different
: design and interfacing concepts for GUI's.

Watch what you ask for, us standards weenies are listening! :-)

IEEE P1201.2 is balloting their Recommended Practice for Graphical User
Interface Drivability.  P1201.1 is working on a window-system
independent GUI API.  P1295.1 and 2 are working on Open Toolkit and Modular
(AKA OpenLook and Motif) API's.  All (with luck) will ascend to ISO.

Soon, instead of complaining about the lack of standards, you can complain
about the standards themselves. ;-)

--
Bob Bagwill	NIST/Computer Systems Lab/Distributed Systems Engineering Group
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,comp.windows.misc,comp.windows.news,comp.windows.x,comp.human-factors
From: lee@sq.sq.com (Liam R. E. Quin)
Subject: Re: GUIs Considered Harmful
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 22:08:11 GMT

lee@sq.com (Liam R. E. Quin) writes:
> I think the difference is that the OPEN LOOK UI was designed.  Very carefully.
> By people with experience.  And _then_ implemented.  Motif was implemented
> without any real specification, as I understand it, and it shows.

nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes:
>There was a specification for the L&F before the toolkit was written.
>It is not as detailed as the OL one, but it exists and it details things
>to the level that you are discussing.

I had undertood that this was not the case.

>The OL stuff was designed more
>carefully in advance, however some of that design (scroll bars for instance)
>seems to have been done explicitly to avoid looking like the Mac.

I don't believe this: there are fundamental differences.  Well, OK, minor
fundamental differences :-)  The OPEN LOOK UI scrollbars are optimised for
people with WorkStation-sized screens.  That's why the controls are on the
bit that moves, and that in turn is why the mouse pointer moves along wwith
the scrollbar.  And you can turn that behaviour off easily (from the
Properties dialogue), so cancel that flame! :-)
Having to move to the top of bottom of the window to scroll, or not being
able to click repeatedly to go forward a page without keeping a careful eye
on the scrollbar is a pain in certain other widely used GUIs...

Lee

-- 
Liam Quin, lee@sq.com, SoftQuad, Toronto, 416 239-4801; the barefoot programmer
  lq-text (Unix text retrieval package) mailing list: lq-text-request@sq.com
  latest released version: 1.10; ftp: ftp.cs.toronto.edu in directory: pub
  If Adultery is for Adults, is Juvenal for Juveniles?
Xref: sparky alt.religion.computers:591 comp.human-factors:1929 comp.windows.misc:1228 comp.windows.news:543 comp.windows.x:15813
From: toma@romulus.cray.com (Thomas Arneberg)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,comp.human-factors,comp.windows.misc,comp.windows.news,comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: GUIs Considered Harmful
Keywords: n
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:35:01 GMT
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

In article <17j149INNi9r@stanley.cis.Brown.EDU> plutchak@pilsner.geo.brown.edu (Joe Six-pack) writes:
>
>How does a CLI person know how to do common things
>like file copying, renaming, moving, etc?  I *still* can't remember
>whether dragging & dropping a file icon between directory windows
>on the Macintosh will do a move or a copy, and have trouble remembering
>what bizarre key/mouse combinations it takes to do "the other one."
>At least with VMS and Unix you have 'HELP' and 'man' if you forget
>how to, for example, get confirmations on file deletion. [...]
>--
>Joel Plutchak, Research Programmer/Analyst

Try looking at the menus. It's easier to select from a list of multiple 
choices than to pick a command from out of the air. If you want to do
things FASTER, then you can start using keyboard shortcuts.

For a beginner, what good does a man page do if you don't remember whether
the command is "rename," "change_name," "move," etc.

Another thing that long-time users forget is that many new users cannot 
type very well, but everyone can point and click. 

  - Tom A.  	(die-hard Unix fan who still recommends the Mac 
		to 98% of my friends & relatives...)
---------------------------------------------+------------------------------
;-) I'd rather be ____  Thomas R. Arneberg   | Inet: toma@cray.com
:-) singing in a |____| Senior IC Design Eng.| UUCP: ...!uunet!cray!toma
:-) Barbershop  _|   _| Cray Research, Inc.  | CLAIM TO FAME: Loni Anderson 
:-) Quartet!   (_)  (_) Chippewa Falls, Wisc.|   went to my high school 
---------------------------------------------+------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.religion.computers:659 comp.human-factors:2029 comp.windows.misc:1305 comp.windows.news:608
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,comp.human-factors,comp.windows.misc,comp.windows.news
Subject: Re: GUIs Considered Harmful
Keywords: nn
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:33:09 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

johnm@cajal.uoregon.edu (John Martin) writes:
> This is exactly the type of user that GUIs are perfect for! I don't think tha
> anyone is arguing otherwise.  BUT -- among proficient users, a good CLI is
> still better and more productive then a GUI.

Says who?  Or am I not a "proficient user"?


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,comp.windows.misc,comp.windows.news,comp.windows.x,comp.human-factors
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: GUIs Considered Harmful
Keywords: n
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:07:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.145609.17818@dcatlas.dot.gov> joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott) writes:
>
>Whose desk is clean enough, 100% (or close) of the time in order to use a
>Rat?

I'm no neat-freak, but my "rat" only needs 4" x 6" of paper-free desktop space.
So, yes, my desk is "clean enough" 100% of the time for to use my <favorite
rodent>.

>[...]
>I'm content to use the DOS command line for my work.

I don't see how _anyone_ can be content with the DOS command line.  The
DOS command interpreter is an abomination (it's almost as rediculous as
the 640k limit.)  Get a real OS and a real Shell.  ;-)

>I can work the way
>I want to, not the way some gooey writer wants me to.  When the [graphics]
>application calls for it, I'll clear a space for my Rat, but otherwise the
>keyboard suits me just fine.

No argument there.
--
Jurgen Botz                  |   Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant  |     Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College        |      Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA        | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
Xref: sparky alt.religion.computers:577 comp.windows.misc:1216 comp.windows.news:532 comp.windows.x:15747 comp.human-factors:1912
From: rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,comp.windows.misc,comp.windows.news,comp.windows.x,comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: GUIs Considered Harmful
Date: 27 Aug 92 11:53:34 GMT
Organization: Human Communication Research Center
In-reply-to: david@twg.com's message of 26 Aug 92 17:53:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.175124.19683@twg.com>, David Herron (dh) writes:

dh> Lots of people point at 3d borders on widgets and try to make fun of them.
dh> Look at it from the other slant for a moment..

'cos then the perspective is all wrong :-).

dh> throw away the 3d borders and use a Mac (pre System 7) or
dh> something written with Athena Widgets.  How does the user tell the
dh> difference between a button and a text entry box?  They both look
dh> *the* *same* (a box with text inside).

Only if you make them look the same. It may be a bit of a pain that
the default for teh Athena widgets is the least common denominator for
all of them, but it is reasonably trivial for application programmers
to set things up better in an app-defaults file. It's also easy for
support staff to set up global defaults to get the same for naive
users. 

In no way does any application need pseudo three-d weirdness just to
tell a button from a text entry field. 

Also there are lots of 1-bit systems out there for who the motif-ish
chrome is useless. 

--
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk			_O_
					 |<
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,comp.windows.misc,comp.windows.news,comp.windows.x,comp.human-factors
From: johnm@cajal.uoregon.edu (John Martin)
Subject: Re: GUIs Considered Harmful
Keywords: nn
Organization: Institute of Neuroscience, University of Oregon
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 18:50:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.145609.17818@dcatlas.dot.gov>, joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott) writes:

>Whose desk is clean enough, 100% (or close) of the time in order to use a
>Rat?

Not mine, ever. I always have to shift piles of stuff around just to move
the rodent to a button and click!!


-- 
John Martin                                        johnm@cajal.uoregon.edu
Institute of Neuroscience,   University of Oregon,    Eugene, OR,    97402
Xref: sparky alt.religion.computers:605 comp.windows.misc:1243 comp.windows.news:556 comp.windows.x:15883 comp.human-factors:1948
From: yandros@Athena.MIT.EDU (Chad Phillip Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,comp.windows.misc,comp.windows.news,comp.windows.x,comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: GUIs Considered Harmful
Date: 30 Aug 92 21:34:53 GMT
	<1992Aug29.232924.10887@sq.sq.com>
Organization: /mit/yandros/.organizations


  From: lee@sq.sq.com (Liam R. E. Quin)
> I think the difference is that the OPEN LOOK UI was designed.  Very
> carefully.  By people with experience.  And _then_ implemented.  Motif
> was implemented without any real specification, as I understand it,
> and it shows.

Not that I'm registering a preference but it's my understanding that
the Motif UI was designed pretty carefully to comply with things like
IBM's CUA, etc.

Personally, I despise OpenLook, just by taste, and find Motif to be
too underpowered, overburdened, and undercustomizable to be useable on
a real machine (maybe my desktop Alpha-connection machine will solve
this ;-).  NeXTStep is very pretty, and has a nice fel, but isn't
customizable enough; and System 7 is similar.  Never used NeWS.  All
in all, I have to agree with you here:


> I don't think _any_ of them are at the point at which I'd say `If
> computer development stopped here it'd be OK'.

although there's always GWM. :-)

--
-->Chad Phillip Brown<--||INTERNET:---->yandros@Athena.MIT.EDU
------------------------||NeXT:---------->yandros@milo.mit.edu
-->Student Information<-||UUCP:-->mit-eddie!mit-athena!yandros		
--->Processing Board<---||BITNET:------>yandros%mit.edu@mitvma
----->CSSConsultant<----||US:--->19 Myrtle;Somerville MA;02143
-------->IS-DCNS<-------||Voice:----------------->617-623-0877
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,comp.windows.misc,comp.windows.news,comp.windows.x,comp.human-factors
From: bbrown@infonode.ingr.com (Bailey Brown)
Subject: Re: GUIs Considered Harmful
Keywords: n
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:44:18 GMT

jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:


>>[...]
>>I'm content to use the DOS command line for my work.

>I don't see how _anyone_ can be content with the DOS command line.  The
>DOS command interpreter is an abomination (it's almost as rediculous as
>the 640k limit.)  Get a real OS and a real Shell.  ;-)

I use Unix at work, and MS-Windows and 4dos on my PC at home.  I've got my
4dos environment set up much like my unix environment at work.  I prefer to
use most applications in GUI form, but for file management,
typeing "rm *.bak *.old *.lst" is much easier than dragging each file
to the "trashcan" or "eraser" or whatever, or dealing with a dialog and
buttons to specify and delete the files.  If you go the menu/dialog
route, you still have to type "*.bak *.old *.lst" anyway.  Windows uses
all 8megs in my system, and will swap in the rare occasions when it is
necessary.  I run dos sessions in windows, much like xterms.

------------
Bailey Brown                               "Above all else, confusion reigns."
Intergraph Corporation                                  
bbrown@casca.b11.ingr.com                              Procol Harum
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,comp.human-factors,comp.windows.misc,comp.windows.news,comp.windows.x
From: "Ken Rawlings" <krawling@papaya.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: GUIs Considered Harmful
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:25:16 -0500

In article <NEERI.92Sep3180619@iis.ethz.ch> neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
>A minor point: Laserprinter are usually *not* connected with a serial (RS-232)
>connection, they are networked.

        Sorry, I thought about changing this when I wrote it, but figured it
didn't matter. What I meant was hooking it up over LocalTalk, which is still a
serial serial connection if memory serves me.

>Can't be done without a special program, but I know how to find it :-)
>
>ftp to sumex-aim.stanford.edu, file info-mac/util/sendps-20.hqx

        Thanks a million. The problem was that the functionality of SendPs
wasn't mentioned in the 00-abstracts file(it just talk about it being fixed),
and thus it wasnt found by grepping for Postscript or Printer. 

>Maybe this situation will change in the not-too-distant future (the printing
>architecture is one of the oldest and quirkiest part of the Mac), but the
>problem with a postscript file is that it is not obvious whether to print it as
>a postscript file or as a text file.

        I understand the dilemma, but I have a problem with an operating system
that doesn't let you do something anyway. It could pop up a requester saying
something like, "Are you _sure_ you want to send this raw" or something. The
fact that it won't do it at all is more than a bit annoying.

>Trust me: There is no way it could run, because it is not yet in the correct
>Mac format. 

        I'm not talking about the .hqx files, i'm referring to binhex4.bin
(see below)

>>            This is a _real_ problem when you have a bunch of
>>            .hqx files, and have a copy of binhex4.bin that you downloaded
>>            with a PC
>
>So convert these .hqx files with Stuffit, or Compact Pro, or tickle. Would you
>expect to read uuencoded files on unix without uudecode ?

        Sheesh, don't assume i'm a _total_ imbecile. :-) 

        It's a totally separate issue. Look more closely at what I said  "when
you have a bunch of .hqx files, and have a copy of binhex4.bin that you
downloaded with a PC". I have the _MAC FORMAT_ binary for the "un-hqxer", and
it won't execute it.

        Anyway, I think these issue point out a central problem of a "Total"
GUI based operating system: If the functionality is not already there, it's
damn hard to get something new done.

        Thanks again for the reference to SendPS.

                                                Regards,
                                                        Ken Rawlings


-- 
: Ken Rawlings      | One Tool to rule them all, one Tool to find them,       
: Computer Science  | One Tool to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
: Indiana University|           -J.R.R. Tolkien(referring to Emacs)
Xref: sparky alt.religion.computers:674 comp.windows.misc:1320