From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: CLI advantages (was Re: Macintosh bigot)
Date: 20 Dec 92 18:25:51 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <oHcTVB1w165w@falcon.no>, lfosdal@falcon.no (Lars Fosdal) writes:
>
> I agree with Mr.Vlcek on this matter.  A GUI is practical and effective
> when implemented correctly, but also give you the "overhead" of having
> to traverse several menulevels and dialog boxes, unless you decided to
> put every command in one menu (God forbid) or all input in a single 
> dialog.  For singular options or commands, this is not a problem,
> but if you need to issue several commands, you have to explore the menu
> once for each of them, and you run the risk of getting "mouseingytis" in
> you right elbow.

All you've demonstrated here is that it is possibly to develop a lousy 
interface using a visual metaphor.

If you create an interface which repeatedly requires the user to traverse
several menus and dialog boxes, then you haven't developed a very good
interface. If you can't create a menu for every command, perhaps you have
too many commands.

> Here's an example on "Why GUI + CLI = Good 4 U":
> 
> I'm working on a financial tech.analysis tool under Windows, where the 
> user may select from a wide range of tools.  He may want to view the 
> historical price of IBM stocks, a 9-day moving average (MA) of that price
> combined with an 18-day MA to reveal any short term trend changes, and 
> may also want to see the traded volume in the same chart.  He also must
> decide which time period he wants to examine.

Sounds easy. Sounds like a window with a chart where several of the chart
parameters can be set with a few simple interface items. I'd allow multiple
charts to be open at once and scaled to any size.

> When you have 40+ such commands, some of them with one or more parameters, 
> that all may be combined, it's obvious that this will give you a hard time
> searching the menus, even if the commands are grouped in logical groups.

Why do you need 40+ commands? And how does a CLI make it easy? (After all,
the poor user has to remember 40+ commands.

> The DOS version of this program was CLI driven, but only accepted one
> command at a time.  Also, there was no menu system.

Yucko.

> In the Windows version, we decided to keep the command line, but we
> wanted to improve it... so you may now combine several commands and 
> parameters on the same line.  The prompter pops up when you start typing
> and it also gives you a history list, a command pick list, and help.

Yucko. What you should have done was to scrap the command line to start
with.

> a typical command line would look like this: (prices are already loaded)
> 
>                                   start 911231 1d lc ma 9 ma 18 w 2 2 v
> view from date until today -------^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ ^ ^
> 1-day history              --------------------|  |  |    |     |   | |
> draw linechart             -----------------------|  |    |     |   | |
> draw 9-day moving avg.     --------------------------|    |     |   | |
> draw 18-day moving avg.    -------------------------------|     |   | |
> Split chart in 2 sections  -------------------------------------|   | |
> Switch to section 2        -----------------------------------------| |
> draw volume bars           -------------------------------------------|

One look at this, and I just shake my head.

If this is your idea of an "easy" interface, you've been smoking something
unusual.

The only "easy" aspect of this interface is that it is relatively easy to
program. 

> The CLI prompter is intelligent enough to recognize missing or bad 
> parameters and will prompt you for the proper value.

It had better. There's no way anyone is going to remember all that.

> You still may go by menu, but for the experienced user, the CLI will
> be much faster  (of course, you may put your regular cmd's in a macro,
> and you may also have a default set of cmd's that are applied 
> automatically every time you load a new stock, bond or currency).

HA! Experienced user. You mean someone with a photographic memory. Real
users won't ever figure out the CLI. They'll use the menus.

> So, why not have the best of two worlds ? 
> A GUI with the optional CLI... 

Because we end up with awful interfaces like this one.

>> but until that time I do fear that the uninformed are going to prevail 
>> and banish CLIs for a time.
> 
> ...And... also bicker over what GUI is the better... :-/
> Personally, I'd use any GUI or CLI, as long as it gets the job done,
> and as long as I don't have be "a-moused to death" :-) 

Agreed. Any well-designed visual interface is better than a poorly designed
one, and better than any CLI.

-- 
Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: bcoleman%hayes@uunet.uu.net
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy