From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More on mouse buttons (was: Macintosh advocacy (really!))
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:53:53 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1g8pfdINNorj@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>, ovrskeek@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (I am the OVER-skeek!) writes:
> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
> 
>>> Also, how much productivity are the advanced users giving up so that 
>>> beginers have an easy time?
> 
>>Zero. (Actually, the advanced users gain a bit of time themselves, because
>>they don't suffer from the which-button decision, either)
> 
> BS. The only way to emulate the more advanced functionality of a multi-button
> mouse is with extra keyboard modifiers. It is rather well-known that
> when you shift from mouse to keyboard, or vice-versa, it is very time
> consuming. 

a) advanced functionality doesn't require more mouse buttons, certainly. It is
   more appropriately part of the visual aspects of the interface, not that of
   the mouse.

b) using modifier keys with the mouse (as an optional activity) is very quick,
   since the other (non-mouse) hand manipulates the modifiers. This results 
   in a very quick, natural two-handed action. (And the consequences of 
   errors are minimized)

c) resorting to optional modifiers certanly takes less mental effort on an
occasional basis than a two or three button mouse does all the time.

> When ever possible, you should make the UI capable of doing
> operations with either interface (mouse/keyboard). Forcing a shift between
> the two is poor UI.

I believe this mechanical model of UI "efficiency" can be measurable but
misdirected. You can certainly measure the time required to shift between
the two types of interfaces. By that measure alone, a keyboard-only or a 
mouse-only interface would be the most efficient. (Which is patently false,
since the mouse is extremely inefficient at entering text, and the keyboard
is cumbersome for manipulating on-screen objects)

A better measure would be one of distraction or cognitive load -- how much
does the computer user interface impede work from being accomplished?

When I first used the mouse, I, too, was disturbed at the number of times I
had to snatch for the mouse. After several months, I finally became
proficient enough with the mouse not to notice. Now I swing between the keyboard
and mouse quickly and (most importantly) without distruption of thought.

>>Some applications feature tear-off menus. (Hypercard, for example)
> 
> If the one-button mouse/infinite height menu bar is the wonder you claim
> it is, why do you need tear-off menus? 

Good question.

Hypercard introduced tear off menus in order to set up palettes of 
commonly used operations. The theory is that the palettes can be moved
closer to the work at hand (and are large enough to hit accurately).
Further, when you are done with the palette, you can put it away and save
screen space, the the menu is always instantly accesible.

It is an interesting trade-off, and it is worthy to note that not all
applications have embraced tear-off menus. (Although most don't need them)

> Hypercard is one of the Mac's
> very well known packages, no? Then why the major change in UI?

Hypercard violates several user interface guidelines. Obviously they thought
these features were somehow "better" than the purpose of the guidelines.

-- 
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.