From: tomster@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:09:10
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280
	<6111.2acc6999@hayes.com> <1992Oct03.233823.24925@NeoSoft.com>
	<6145.2ad1dc34@hayes.com> <strobl.718461278@gmd.de>
	<6170.2ad5a35b@hayes.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu
In-reply-to: bcoleman@hayes.com's message of 9 Oct 92 15:20:59 EDT

In article <6170.2ad5a35b@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

   In article <strobl.718461278@gmd.de>, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
   > In <6145.2ad1dc34@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
   > 
   >>Except that they don't work in all cases, so you can't use them.
   > 
   > True. If another window has the keyboard focus, they won't work.

   While it may be obvious to a PROGRAMMER when the keyboard focus changes,
   it certainly isn't ovious to the USER. When I bring up a dialog box within
   the same application, it may TECHNICALLY be a different window, but to me,
   the user, it is the same application.

???
If you are openning a file, you mean, you also want to be able to type into
the spreadsheet simultaneously?  That seems rather silly.  Of course it is the
same application.  It is quite apparent, however, no matter how dense the user
is, that it is a different action.

   > This is just what I would expect in a system with more than a 
   > single window. 

   But not what you would expect in a system with a single APPLICATION. That's
   my beef.

But, by your definition of the Mac, all programs are to be seen by the user
as the *same* application.  Now, I would imagine that all these aspects of
the computer the user is seeing where written by different programmers, at
different times, in different places.  You expect that somehow, majically,
when the user hits a key, all the applications will decide who the keystroke
was meant for, no problems?  Sounds kinda cool, in a Communism sort of way.
Good luck making it work.

   > But as long as the window which has the menu bar we are talking
   > about *has* the keyboard focus, you can use all available menu navigation
   > methods given by the standard menu keyboard interface. 

   You can. It is quite modal, and requires a bit more cognitive effort than
   using a mouse, but you can.

I tend to disagree here.

   > That Peter couldn't remember the shortcuts doesn't surprise me -
   > I'm unable to remember them, as well. I use them all the time while 
   > working with Windows applications, but if you would ask me how
   > to open a file in Write, I would have a hard time to come up with
   > the correct answer Alt d f. Fortunately, my hands and fingers
   > know it better.

   Funny. As a long-time Mac user, I can recite all the standard shortcuts 
   from memory. And my fingers know them quite well. 

That is because of the way you learned them.  You memorized the key actions
as 'Command' and 'Insert'.  I have not, and I don't suppose many others have,
either.  I have learned the *actions*, and the *associations*.  Different
things than what you seem to have memorized.

   Which is exactly the point. If you have to think about the shortcuts, then
   you might as well use the mouse -- its faster. If you can't remember them
   instantly, game over.

Which was exactly *his* point.  He doesn't think 'Alt-<EP>'.  He doesn't
think at all, any more than you think 'Pull down Edit, click on Paste'.
It is much more natural than that.

   And what's the use of training your fingers to type something, if it can't
   be used in all cases. I started working with Windows, and I got used to
   ALT-EP for paste. I didn't like it, but I got used to it. Then I brought up
   a dialog box. WHAMMO. ALT-EP didn't work. So much for saving time with
   shortcuts.

I don't understand this fixation with the dialog box.  Well, Bill, since *you*
don't seem to know why it is so important to be able to access *all* the
menu items from within a dialog box, maybe someone else can help you out.
Anyone?

   And if Write has a shortcut of ALT-DF to open a file, then it proves my 
   point completely. There is no consistancy between Windows applications. The
   correct shortcut would be ALT-FO.

I somehow doubt that Write, a MS product, violates such a fundamental aspect
of Windows design.  Does it really, anyone?

   >>> They're learned automatically as you use the system... 
   > 
   >>NOT!
   > 
   > Why not? I've learned them automatically, while I used the system, and
   > I know a lot of people who learned them while they used the system.

   Except they don't work. So you learn them one way, then you have to go
   back and learn the REAL shortcuts.

Huh?  The 'real' shortcuts?

   > Perhaps there *are* people unable to memorize short (i.e. one
   > or two) key sequences they use all the time, but I doubt  
   > very much that they are in a majority.

   There's actually a large difference between a two and three key sequence. 
   That's why I find Windows menu navigation to be cumbersome.

But they are almost all just two-keys.  You mean the Alt key too?  Hmm.
Well, with only Alt and one other key, you have a severely limited list
of shortcuts, each of which must nemonically (sp?) match the action.  You get
things like 'Control-V' with this.  Two action keys are actually easier for
me to remeber than one non-intuitive key.

   On the Mac, I don't care where the Open menu is. I just hit Command-O and
   I've got it. Under Windows, I can't be sure exactly where this menu is.
   Is it under the File menu, where it should be? Or perhaps I'm using 
   Write, where it falls under a different menu.

HOWEVER!  Windows also has those one-key shortcuts you so admire.  At least,
it did the last time *I* checked.  The point here is modularity, something
which is at the very soul of the pc.

   >>And as soon as you try to use one of those ALT- shortcuts in a dialog,
   >>WHAMMO -- all that learning goes out the window.
   > 
   > Wrong, plain and simply. Dialog boxes have a very nice and standard
   > keyboard interface, which includes the Alt+ letter shortcuts, of
   > course.

   Nope. You can't do a Paste using the ALT+ shortcuts. You have to do 
   <taking deep breath> Ctrl-Ins. 

IF the dialog box has a reason for using paste (that the programmer foresaw,
which is a bad exception, IMO), and IF the programmer decided that you would
use it, the Alt-keys work.

   Or if the application is more progressive, Ctrl-V.

Like all Mac programs ...

   > Where do you get your information about Windows?

   From using it. ARGH!

You just told me a few posts back that you haven't used a DOS based machine
in years.  I have the actual post still here if you would like a copy so you
can refresh your memory...

   >>Using the computer without a pointing device is a benefit? Oog. I disagree.
   > 
   > Please read what he writes. To be able to operate a computer without
   > a pointing device is a benefit. To be forced to use a pointing device
   > in order to use the computer isn't. 

   I disagree. The pointing device is a natural extension of real-world learning.
   Keyboarding is not. I do not agree that being able to use a visual interface
   from the keyboard is a benefit when the mechanisms to do this get in the way 
   of other interface elements through inconsistant usage.

How does the ability to use the ALT-<> key sequences 'get in the way' of
mousing, besides offending your uptight sensibilities, that is?

   If ALT-EP worked even from a dialog box, I'd feel better. I'd still think of
   the three key shortcuts as cumbersome, but they wouldn't be so awful. They 
   don't.

This fixation, and still no explanation of what you mean ...

   > 
   >>No, if you don't know what they are, then you can't recall them. You are
   >>back to the old remember/recall cycle that we've shown is faster with the
   >>mouse.
   > 
   >>Second, it proves you never learned them at all, since you couldn't remember
   >>them. If you can remember them in a discussion, you can't remember them
   >>on the keyboard.
   > 
   > Do you really think that it is as simple as that? There is no reason
   > to remember two letter shortcuts much longer than you actually use
   > them. 

   This assertion is exactly contrary to my experience as a Macintosh user.
   I remember all the standard shortcuts BECAUSE I use them. Either the
   longer Windows shortcuts aren't used (and hence aren't learned), or the
   complexity of the cumbersome nature of the interfaces bars learning.

Huh?  You've been listenning in on too many discussions of fuzzy logic, my
friend.  How can you go from that (faulty) assertation to that obviously
false conclusion?

   > Do you actually *read* the menu bars of your applications, each
   > time you select a menu entry? Probably not. 

   The beauty of a visual user interface is that YOU DON'T HAVE TO. You
   don't have to READ just RECOGNIZE.

That was his point.

   In a CONSISTANT visual user interface, it is even better, because recognition
   is faster since you already know what to expect!

Agreed.   don't see anyone here arguing the benifits of inconsistency.

   > You read it once, or twice and remember it by its various attributes 
   > (mostly: position) and use it blindly, later.

   Yup. And this is exactly why mousing is faster than keyboard shortcuts.

   If you and Peter are actually trying to tell me that you use Windows by
   pressing Alt, then thumbing through the menus by pressing the arrow keys,
   or by looking at the menu items and typing the appropriate shortcut, then you
   are TONS slower than users using the mouse. The comparative cognitive load
   is immense.

Yes, if they were 'thumbing through the menus' with the arrow keys, reading
every line, they *would* be slower.  Nothing they have said has indicated
this to be true, however.  Why do you imagine that they do this?  Do you?

   > If you are unsure, you start to read them, again. But are you able
   > to remember the position of a submenu entry (i.e. third entry, fourth
   > choice) in a discussion? 

   Actually, I usually can. But that's just me. 

Because you are memorizing names rather than actions.

   > Of course not, and, more important, it doesn't
   > prove anything whether you do it or not. 

   It is important. The issue at hand was the CONSISTANCY of the user 
   interface. I put for the example of Windows shortcuts as an INCONSISTANCY.
   If you can't remember the shortcuts, it proves the inconsistancy.

???

   > Menu and dialog navigation, as implemented by Windows, works in a 
   > very similar way. When you start, you actually read whats written
   > in the menus or on the buttons. But if you have selected an entry
   > for a few times by typing the underscored letters you are looking
   > at, it becomes a mechanical action, which doesn't require you
   > to read the menu or the dialog box, anymore. 

   Until you try that action in a dialog box. Or switch to another application
   that uses different menu structure. Then -- WHAMMO. All your learning goes
   down the drain. Cognitive load.

Oh my God.  All my learning!  Cognitive load!

Honestly, Bill.  You are pushing this dialog box thing way too far.  If you
can't explain *exactly* what you mean by it, I suggest you drop it.  I would
rather you explain yourself, because it sounds like it'll be a good one ...

   > You recognize the menu or the dialog box as a whole, and react with the 
   > one or two letter sequence you have assoziated with the one or two
   > word (i.e. command) sequence which describes what you intend to do.

   It is faster to do this with the mouse. With the mouse, you just reach out
   and grab the item you see. With the keyboard, you have to recall, then
   synthesize the appropriate key, then you have to type it. By the time you've
   done all this, the mouse user has already grabbed his mouse, grabbed the
   item on the screen and returned to the keyboard for the next thing. Faster.

Now Bill.  You just assertained that low-level brain activity is faster than
high-level.  Now you're saying that the mouse is faster, but reason it out
by using higher brain functions (grabbing, image recognition).  This is
necessary with a mouse because not everything is in exactly the same place
all the time.  The 'E' key never moves from its spot above the 'd' on
my keyboard.  I don't have to do any of this recognition of grabbing.  The
Alt-key shortcuts, by your own definitions, should be faster.

   >>Except the Mac doesn't have an ALT key. It appears your learning is
   >>defective.
   > 
   > You mean, his whole argument breaks because the Alt key is called
   > Command key (or apple key? I, too, don't recall the name), on
   > the Macintosh? 

   It goes by various names: Command, Clover, Pretzel.

   Alt is not one of the names.

   The argument breaks down because your learning is defective.

He knew where it was, that was enough.  I don't care if the space bar is called
the Pretzel-Modifier bar.  It is there, under my thumb.  The Command button
is in the same place as the Alt key on a PC.

   >>This is also the problem with OS/2 PM and Windows. There's no consistancy
   >>in the UI design. (Gee, we've come full circle)
   > 
   > Well, indeed. The Macintosh UI is different from PM and Windows, and
   > more consistent, often by omission. This doesn't always make it 
   > better, imho.

   IMHO, Consistancy is lots more important than feature count.

I don't know if I would quite go that far, but the two both definitely rank up
there at the top of the usability charts.

   -- 
   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.

		---- tomster@wpi.wpi.edu

--
/^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\
|  The bleeding hearts and the artists  \ /  Words of Wisdom, Inc.            |
|  make their stand.  And when they've  / \  Thomas R. Dibble, esquire, C.E.O.|
|  given you their all, some stagger &  \ /  aka, The Tomster, Tomahawk, etc. |
|  fall,  after  all,  it's not  easy,  / \  send mail/ money to:             |
|  banging your heart against some mad  \ /  tomster@wpi.wpi.edu              |
|  bugger's wall. ---R. Waters, _Wall_  / \  (or don't send it at all)        |
\vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv/

Xref: sparky comp.sys.mac.advocacy:1695 comp.os.os2.advocacy:7683