From: johnsd2@vccsouth15.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: More Defense of CLI (there, I changed the subject ... )
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:34:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.181146.3153@nwnexus.WA.COM>, kanefsky@halcyon.com (Steve Kanefsky) writes:
|> In article <6212.2adc3730@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
|> >In article <1992Oct13.224704.1325@nwnexus.WA.COM>, kanefsky@halcyon.com (Steve Kanefsky) writes:
|> >> In article <1992Oct13.202113.23250@gvl.unisys.com> dave@prc.unisys.com (David Lee Matuszek) writes:
|> >>>In article <6203.2adadad3@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
|> >>>
|> >>>The point isn't that a two-year old can use a mouse.  The point is
|> >>>that things people learn early in life are more deep-seated and
|> >>>fundamental, and require less higher-level intellectual activity.
|> >> 
|> >> That doesn't necessarily matter.  Just because a two-year old can do
|> >> task A but not task B doesn't mean that an adult can't do task B more
|> >> efficiently than task A.  Otherwise we'd all be crawling everywhere we
|> >> go instead of walking, running, driving, flying airplanes, etc.
|> >
|> >(Sigh)
|> >
|> >You carefully avoided David's point, didn't you? While you are not
|> >two years old anymore, and you've certainly added skills since you were
|> >two, the things that are easy for you at two are certainly still easy
|> >for you as an adult.
|> 
|> No, I didn't avoid the point at all -- I disputed it.  Sure, it's still
|> easy for me to walk or crawl.  But now that I'm grown up I'm capable of
|> travelling much more efficiently using a bicycle.  As our mental
|> capacities increase, why not take advantage of them by using more
|> sophisticated tools?

No reason at all. So why don't you like GUIs? :)
[sorry, just could not resist. I know its a totally bogus argument.]

|> 
|> >And we're not talking about some ad hominem task A and task B, we're talking
|> >about the specific case of using a Mouse (or other pointing device) versus
|> >using a keyboard. 
|> 
|> Right.  In most cases, I can communicate more information in less time
|> using a keyboard.  I wouldn't want to use a keyboard for freehand
|> drawing, but for entering commands it's often more efficient.

I agree that which input device you use depends on what you are trying
to input. But I dont believe entering commands is more efficient.

Its seems very cumbersome, to me. Lotta memorization.

|>  How can
|> you possibly fail to see that some commands are better described with
|> words than with pictures,

How can you possibly fail to see that we aren't talking about pictures? :)

|> and that it's usually easier to specify words
|> with a keyboard (when the set of possible words is more than a couple
|> dozen).

I would say its easier to specify words with the keyboard if there
are an unlimited # of words... if there are only a couple dozen,
stick 'em in a list already, like a standard file dialog. (or
do something better... there must be something, thats an awful
kludge, but this is too general a case for me to work out...)

|>  If I asked for a description of how to get to your home from my
|> home (which I'll assume is thousands of miles away), would you spend
|> hours drawing me pictures, or a couple minutes typing up directions?
|> Even the pictures would be useless without words to label things.

Therefore, lets get rid of the picture! :)

I'd rather point New York on a map, then Troy on a map of New York, etc...

Let the computer figure the route out. Why should I be bothered with this?

|> 
|> >>>You can use a mouse literally without thinking about it.  On occasion,
|> >>>working with someone else at their terminal, I have been momentarily
|> >>>frustrated because I couldn't get to the mouse to point at something
|> >>>on the screen, only to realize I could use a finger for this purpose.
|> >>>(Admittedly, I'm highly practiced with the mouse.)
|> >> 
|> >> I still claim that using the mouse needs to be taught.  
|> >
|> >And the keyboard requires no training at all?
|> 
|> Sure it does.  It requres more training than the mouse.  I've certainly
|> gained back the time I've invested in learning to use a keyboard.

So you say.

|> 
|> >> Having to pick up the mouse and move it back onto the pad is decidedly 
|> >> *non* intuitive to many people.  
|> >
|> >While it may be non intuitive, do you have to show people over and over?
|> 
|> Sometimes.

Minor interjection: For some reason, I dont run into the side of the
mousepad much. Perhaps because I have my mouse speed set the max,
and the pad is big enough. Its not always a problem, basically.

Now back to your regularly scheduled nonsence.. :)

|> >I submit that you probably only have to show somebody this ONCE, and they
|> >will know they can do it. Proficiency at any skill comes with practice.
|> 
|> But there's only so far you can go.  The more expresssive a language is,
|> the longer it takes to learn.

So why make things more difficult with a command line? They are hard
enough, no?

|> 
|> >> On the other hand, even rats can be taught to press a particular key.  
|> >
|> >The issue isn't pressing a key. The issue is using a keyboard. Surely you're
|> >not suggesting that rats have been taught to use a keyboard?
|> 
|> If we're talking about simple keyboard shortcuts for copy, paste, etc.
|> then pressing a key *is* using the keyboard.  Rats have been taught to
|> press a poarticular key to get a particular response (food vs. electric
|> shock for example).  I'm sure that a child who's too young to use a
|> mouse could be taught to press one of several different keys to execute
|> one of several operations.

I can see it now:

"Ok Junior, press a key." <poke> [WHACK] "No not that key!"
:)

In any case, there is a rather formidable array of keys to push.
Even if they kid can read, he'll have all sorts of fun searching for
the right one. And then there's holding down one or more keys while you
push a annother one. And those keys that stay done until you
push them again...

And to use a computer you must remember MANY keys.

|> 
|> >> I also sincerely doubt that a two-year old could be taught to understand 
|> >> a standard file dialog box.  
|> >
|> >There's a video tape of an Apple engineer's 1 1/2 year old daughter using
|> >a Mac. I knew a consultant whose 4 and 6 year old children could use his
|> >Mac. Note that these children haven't even gotten to the age where they
|> >could nominally read, much less spell out commands on a keyboard interface.
|> 
|> So were these children doing desktop publishing or what?  How can you
|> lump everything into "could use his mac"?  Sure, a few simple mouse
|> movements is enough to browse around in the finder, but it requires
|> language and keyboard skills to do most things on the Mac.  Just as
|> pressing a few keys doesn't make you a touch-typist, being able to move
|> the mouse around doesn't make you able to use the full Mac GUI.

Nope, but it comes a heck of a lot closer.

|> 
|> >> Many of the things a two-year old can be taught to use the mouse for 
|> >> could also be done with just a single keypress. The more complex things 
|> >> you can do in a GUI still require language and higher cognitive processes.
|> >
|> >A two-year old can be taught to use KIDPIX for drawing pictures. With
|> >the mouse.
|> >
|> >Are you suggesting that this can be done with a single keypress? If so,
|> >you are grossly mistaken.
|> 
|> I already mentioned drawing as one of the few areas where the mouse is
|> such a natural interface that the keyboard couldn't replace it.  A
|> comparable example would be teaching a kid to play musical notes by
|> pressing keys on the keyboard.  The same kid probably couldn't use a
|> mouse interface to a piano keyboard as effectively.
|> 
|> This argument about what two-year olds can do is becoming very tiresome.
|> How does this apply to what you or I can do?  I've already shown that
|> the relative ease of skills changes with age, and completely new skills
|> are learned which become as easy as skills which were learned early in
|> life.

What you haven't done is demonstrate the desirability of the new
skills- not just touch typing, but memorizing all those commands..

|> 
|> >Using a visual interface requires no language or higher cognitive processes.
|> >Children who can't read, spell and barely speak can use a visual interface
|> >quite easily.
|> 
|> This is still boring me.  Just because a 2-year old can't do something
|> doesn't mean I can't do it in my sleep.

Well, why dont you tell us its bothing you 6 ot 7 more times? It'll
make you feel better! :)

Ah, but will it STILL be bothing you next paragraph! :)

|> 
|> >> Actually it's very hard to grab a physical object.  Ask a robot.  
|> >
|> >Humans aren't robots. Or have you been using command line interfaces so
|> >long you have forgotten this.
|> 
|> The problems involved with grabbing a physical object are the same
|> regardless of who's doing it.  Take computer vision and AI techniques in 
|> robotics courses (as I have) and you'll understand.

Nonetheless, people already seem to be pretty decent at it,
however difficult it may be.

|> 
|> >> Your own argument applies here.  You learn it so early you don't realize it's
|> >> hard.  
|> >
|> >Good point. Perhaps its easier because we've had more time to build proficiency.
|> >That still means it is easier, regardless of the reason.
|> 
|> Is it easier for you to add 15235 and 32124 or to solve the equation 
|> 2x = 4?  Which one did you learn how to do first?  Which one have you
|> had more time to build proficiency in?

huh? I no get it...

|> 
|> >> Well, I'm sure you're aware how oversimplified this is.  The mind has
|> >> the ability to process lots of things in parallel.  There are some areas
|> >> that can get overloaded, but you can do two or more non-conflicting
|> >> tasks at the same time.  
|> >
|> >Exactly. I can mouse around on the screen while thinking about what I'm going
|> >to write next. I can even do it while I'm talking on the telephone.
|> >
|> >> I can type or talk at the same time I'm thinking up what to type or say 
|> >> next.  
|> >
|> >Don't call me when I'm typing in news replies. I can't type and talk at the
|> >same time. Doing so overloads my semantic capabilities.
|> 
|> It's not the typing.  I can play games with fairly compllex keyboard
|> interfaces while I'm talking to someone.  It's the *language* use that
|> conflicts.  Using the mouse interface still requires language, and tends
|> to conflict with talking as well.

Using the mouse does not require language, as far as I can see. How
does it take language to double click on yer hard drive, say?

|> 
|> >I've known people who appear to be able to read, talk on the phone and
|> >watch TV at the same time. They don't appear to do any of these things
|> >very well. I can't. Perhaps if I practiced more, I could....
|> 
|> Sometimes people think they can do these things, but they actually
|> can't.  Studies have shown that people who listen to two conversations
|> at once (one in each ear) sometimes think they are understanding both,
|> but are actually switching back and forth and missing big chunks of one
|> or the other or both.

If you believe this, why don't you believe the studies that say
that use having to contemplate about keyboard equivalents for
a couple of seconds before you use them (thus blowing away
the "speed" advantage), but don't thing you had to do so (so it
seems fast)?

|> 
|> >> What that says to me is that humans have a substantial
|> >> capacity for processing verbal and even written language.  
|> >
|> >True. But we have an easier time just interacting with the real world. It
|> >takes substantially less brainpower to reach out and pick up your coffee
|> >cup than it does to describe the action to someone else.
|> 
|> I think it takes very little brainpower to say "pass the coffee."  There
|> are lots of things that can interfere with the physical action too.  The
|> cup of coffee might be buried in a clutter of other objects.

An excellent reason not to so bury the cup of coffee! :)

(well, as I dont like coffee, I think its an excellent reason
to bury the coffee, but I digress...)

|> 
|> >> Otherwise we'd all be using sign language.  
|> >
|> >On anthropological (I hope I spelled that correctly) theory is that sign
|> >language was one of the first forms of communication in human culture. 
|> >Even today, we use sign language extensively, even if we aren't aware of
|> >it. (ref. any of one of the recent books on body language.
|> 
|> Body language really isn't an alternative for spoken/written language.
|> You can't combine components of body language to say something that no
|> one has ever said before, and have someone understand it.  Look how far
|> we've advanced and how rapidly, largely due to the power of
|> spoken/written communication.  There's not a whole lot of difference
|> between humans and apes, other than language.

(actually, Ive heard that some apes have been taught to speak (sign language,
acutally), but that's beside the point)

We are not giving doctoral dissertations to our computers ya know.
We want to give them orders, not philosophy. What's so nice about GUIs
is that it makes giving orders invisible, because it is like you are
doing it yourself. (whereas actually the computer interprets your
action and THEN does the dirty deed)

|> 
|> >> We have CLI's because there's just some things that are easier to say 
|> >> with words than with gestures.
|> >
|> >Words work better for expressing ideas. Unfortunately, computers have no
|> >capacity to understand ideas. So using words to communicate with computers
|> >conveys no advantage.
|> 
|> Well, *my* computers understand my ideas, in the form of programs and
|> commands, very well.  We could argue what it means to understand
|> something, but the fact that my computer does exactly what I tell it to
|> do is proof to me that it understands.  I'd like the ability to express
|> my ideas in words as well as gestures if you don't mind.

If you want to do so, be my guest. You'll have to get something
besides a Mac tho. Why you would want to do this is annother question,
of course...

-- 
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy