From: billj@b11.b11.ingr.com (Bill Jones)
Subject: Re: GUIs Considered Harmful
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 07:17:15 GMT

skok@itwds1.energietechnik.uni-stuttgart.de (Holger Skok) writes:

>In article <1992Sep2.162110.15032@cas.org> lvirden@cas.org (Larry W. Virden) writes:
>[... stuff deleted]
>>
>>I don't know why folks have to take an either/or angle.  Let's make the
>>user more proficient by giving them access to both environments and
>>when it makes more sense to use shell, a CUI, a mouse, voice input, a
>>blink of the eye, a sneeze/hiccup/burp/whatever then use it.  And make
>>as many of the other accesses available as possible, for those with
>>other priorities...
>>-- 

>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.

So sorry. We've had a widespread GUI for eight years (Mac) with other
GUIs gaining acceptance only recently. X Windows about five, OL 
about the same, Motif about 3-4, Windows ONLY TWO YEARS. Until we get
an inkling of a consensous, I want NO standardization.

We're not talking network protocols, where different parties have to get
together before implementation. We're talking about a self-evolving beast.
What if UIs had been frozen at the "Choose one from this menu:" stage.
Yuck! That would have been way premature standardization.

I went to an X Conference and eavesdropped on three guys arguing about
the proper way to drag and drop. There's no clear way to do this
relatively simple-sounding operation. We don't have any useful solutions
for voice input yet, how can we standardize? (Actually, I just typed satan-
dardized. Musta been thinking about Win3 :) Now that the damn look-and-
feel lawsuit is on its deathbed, we'll can look forward to de facto
standards in the near future, which is the best way to go.

It hacks me off big time when people tout Win3 as the be-all-and-end-all
of GUIs. It's really a first moderately workable crack at the problem by
a company with a bad track record in the area and it's TWO YEARS OLD.
It works, but it ain't perfect. In fact, most copies I know were bought
by gearheads like me. Win3 was installed, played with, and put in the
closet to gather dust next to the VIC 20. Till they find something they
can use it for that's beats what they alreay have.

Windows NT hasn't even been seen by anyone who hasn't signed a NDF.
Yet BYTE asks on its cover "Is Unix Dead?". This isn't fair. Not
even to Microsoft, who will not be able to match capabilities with
a more mature Unix system YET.

Before you demand standards, let's let these products mature and come
together on their own for two or three years. Win3 has copied ideas from
the Mac, Motif has borrowed stuff from Win3, Apple has mimed Motif
in some areas. To impose an artificial standard could be worse than
no standards at all.


>-- 
>*************************************************
>*	Those stupid, horse-brained masses! 	*
>*			OPUS on honker surgery  *
>*******************************************HSK***

Yes, what can I do for you? :)

Bill Jones
Intergraph Corp
billj@beowulf.b11.ingr.com

Xref: sparky alt.religion.computers:704 comp.human-factors:2106 comp.windows.misc:1354 comp.windows.news:639 comp.windows.x:16270