From: tomster@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Date: 4 Oct 92 06:13:52 GMT
	<6057.2ac6dd05@hayes.com> <1992Sep30.011703.4998@NeoSoft.com>
	<6092.2ac9c038@hayes.com> <TOMSTER.92Oct1144544@bigwpi.WPI.EDU>
	<6111.2acc6999@hayes.com>
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu
In-reply-to: bcoleman@hayes.com's message of 2 Oct 92 15:24:09 EDT

In article <6111.2acc6999@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

   In article <TOMSTER.92Oct1144544@bigwpi.WPI.EDU>, tomster@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble) writes:
   > In article <6092.2ac9c038@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
   >    Easier to learn? GACK! No way. There's little consistancy between applications.
   >    Heck, applications can't even decide on a consistant way to stop a program,
   >    at least all Mac applications have File / Quit.
   > 
   > Well, with all the Windows programs I have, that is exactly where the 'quit'
   > option is.  Running a DOS app in a window is a bit different, of course,
   > but we are talking Windows here, not DOS.

   Hmm. Looking in the Windows Application Design Guide, section 5.4.2.1
   which describes the standard items in the File menu. The standard
   item is supposed to be "Exit" with "x" as the shortcut.

I was putting it in your nomenclature.  If, as you have asserted, the menus
are so much faster than the keyboard shortcuts, what is the difference between
'quit' and 'exit', anyway?  When working in Windows I proudly use as many
keyboard shortcuts as I can, but always seem to exit by pulling the 'File' menu
or the '-' box (I think that's called the 'System Menu') down and clicking
the 'Close' or the 'Exit' option, depending on which I pulled down.

   So you see, if all your programs have File / Quit (obviously, no "x"), then
   we have a case of inconsistancy between applications under Windows. QED.

They do not.

   >    Less surprising. NOT! Windows lacks consistancy between applications. Quick!
   >    What do the middle and right buttons do on the Windows mouse? "Left up to
   >    the Application." Faugh. Without guidelines, there's no consistancy. Having
   >    vague or incomplete guidelines is even worse.
   > 
   > Quick!  what do the left and middle buttons do on the Mac?!?   ... :->

   Nothing. They don't exist. (My, that was easy)

That was the point.
Notice the smiley ...

   Remember, having more doesn't necessarily mean it is better. If you think
   having three mouse buttons is better than one, why not have six buttons?
   Ten? A hundred? Two thousand?

Now that would be stupid.  More than two buttons do not make sense -- certainly
more than five buttons would not make sense.  Let's work back from there.
The 'pinky' and the 'ring finger' do not operate independantly of each other,
therefore four buttons is the max.  Since the thumb is intuitively used
for stabilization, and is slower in reacting to nerve stimuli than the other
fingers, a thumb button would not be ergonamically correct.  Three buttons
is our max.  From here in, the issue gets fuzzy.  Notice that the middle
finger is not entirely muscle-independant of the ring and index fingers
(hold your hand in front of your face and try to bring the middle finger
down without the others moving.).  Two buttons would therefore work slightly
better than three.  Here, however, we have to notice that this one-button
sacrifice is not entirely free.  We lose much functionality.  In fact,
many programs written with three-button mice in mind do not work nearly as
smoothly when using two buttons:  with two buttons you have three single-
click options -- left, right, and both -- whereas with a three-button
mouse you have (by my count) seven -- left, middle, right, l&m, l&r, m&r,
l&m&r -- though many of these are quite ergonamically uncorrect.  You lose half
the potential functionality of the mouse.  Going one step further, giving
yourself only one button, you lose two-thirds of the functionality of the
mouse.
The question, then, is how much functionality you actually need.  In the better
applications I have come upon, the right button brings up context-sensitive
help on what you are pointing at.  Granted, this is not standard to any
degree, and conflicts heavily with MS's idea of what the right button should
do, but, in a perfect world, it would be.  This is not a perfect world.
However, why limit ourselves to just one button?
From what you have written, the only argument against the second button is
that *you* don't know what it does all the time.  So don't use it!  You can 
pretend *your* mouse has just one button by using *just* that one button!
Believe it or not, it can be done!
Sorry, but having only one button seems futile to me.  What if I where to say
'you can only have one input device'.  That would limit your choices
dramatically.  Keyboard, mouse, or Joe-Shmoe's-Backyard-Concoction.  You
could get by with either, but progress would be tedious (trying to type a
letter with a mouse, working in a gui with the keyboard).  The same idea.
If you don't like mice *don't use them*.  But there's no reason everyone
else can't have one.

   >    >> QUICK! What's the keyboard shortcut for copy and past?
   >    > 
   >    > I don't have it in front of me (haven't used it in years), but that's in the
   >    > Edit menu. Paste will be ALT<EP>, and either cut or copy will be ALT<EC>. The
   >    > other will be ALT<EU> or ALT<EO> respectively. The keyboard shortcuts are
   >    > uniformally mnemonic for the menu selections. *and* they're displayed on the
   >    > screen.
   > 
   >    Wrong. You bring up a dialog window, and ALT <ET>, ALT <EC> and ALT <EP>
   >    (Cut, Copy, and Paste, respectively) won't work. Note that your message didn't
   >    even have these correct, or perhaps there's even more variance between apps
   >    than I thought.
   > 
   > Well, maybe I only use a very limited subset of Windows apps (and proud of it
   > :->  ), but the Alt-<ET> for Cut and Alt-<EP> for paste worked in all of them.
   > What apps do these *not* work in?

   Note that Peter got the shortcuts wrong in the text above, so it wasn't right
   until I corrected it.

He did, however, note that it had been 'years' since he had used Windows.

   Alt- shortcuts will work as long as the menu is on top. They won't work
   in an dialog box, because the menu is inaccessible from the dialog. You have
   to use the alternate shortcuts. (See below)

   So, if you get used to using the Alt- shortcuts (as painful as they are),
   as soon as a dialog pops up, wham! your carefully learned shortcuts go out
   the window. ARGH!

This sounds intriguing.  When would you want to use the menus while in a
dialog box?  Please give an example.

   >    No, to use shortcuts consistantly, you can't reply on ALT menu activation.
   >    You have to use Shift-DEL, Control-Ins and Shift-Ins for Cut, Copy and Paste,
   >    respectively. These will actually work in the dialog box.

   What's worse, MS changed the spec! The latest Windows guide stays to use
   Ctrl-X, Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V (I wonder where in the heck they came up with
   those choices? They aren't mnemonic at all....)

I have no idea.

   "Ctrl" is a terrible choice for a shortcut, cause it won't work
   properly with terminal emulation software. ARGH!

Exactly.

   > 
   >    What's more, many important applications don't even support this type of
   >    editing. Like the Program Manager or the File Manager. Ugh.
   > 
   > Now what would you do with this in the PM?  FM, I can understand; the
   > nomenclature has switched from cut&paste to move and copy, but...

   I want to copy and paste a file name in on a rename. I can do this in the
   Finder, I can't do this with FM. ARGH!

   > 
   >    You proved my point by demonstrating the inconsistant behavior of Windows.
   >    QED.
   > 
   > He did?

   Yup. He (and you) got the shortcuts wrong. That proves the inconsistancy of
   Windows.

Which shorcuts did I get wrong?  I checked Alt-<ET>, etc, on an actual,
running copy of Windows and can find no error there.

   >    > Hey, you want to stop that *quit buying Microsoft products*. 
   > 
   >    Heh, heh. I don't own any MS products. At work, I have MS Word 4.0 because
   >    I have need for it. Other members in other departments aren't so enlightened,
   >    and I have to look at their files. (I prefer WriteNow)
   > 
   > This really has little to do with the discussion, but (in the hopes of this
   > becomming a bash-MS newsgroup) about the saddest quote I ever read was
   > (I forget who said it) "I know, Turbo-C is far superior to Microsoft C,
   > but I use the MS product because it is industry standard."  Truly pitiful
   > that 'industry standards' are valued more highly than innovation and
   > efficiency, IMO.

   Our Tech Writers have standardized on MS Word. I only use it when I absolutely
   have to look at one of their files. Fortunately, due the consistancy
   of Mac applications, I can actually do this (even with an MS product).

   I also decry the "industry standard" issue. But it's human nature. If you
   had the choice between a moderately featured product, and a highly featured
   product that could both do the same job you needed to do, you'd buy the
   highly featured product. After all, you might need some of those extra
   features someday. Nevermind the fact that you'll never figure out how to
   use even the basic features fully.

I left this in because I'm so happy to have found something we actually
*agree* on!

   -- 
   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/