From: johnsd2@jec325.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: More on mouse buttons (was: Macintosh a
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec325.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:57:58 GMT

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. 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.

Actually, the idea of modifiers is to use both the keyboard and mouse
at the same time. But I pick a nit. Ill also just let the oportunity
to have annother dumb argument about the importance of the keyboard interface.

Instead, Ill prove you assertion that "the only way to emulate the more
advanced functionality of a multi-button mouse is with extra keyboard
modifiers" wrong, at least for one case.

The case is the Amiga menu system, wherein you can hit a menu item
more than once without letting the menu roll up by using a second mouse
button. Some Amigahead or other provided this as an example of the use
of the second mouse button.

BUT, behold the NeXT menu system. When you drop out a menu on the
next, it stays dropped (to the right, if you remember); because of the
compact design of the menu, its ok for it do so; it doesn't take much
space. This arrangement permits a couple really, really 'intuitive', obvious
operations that 'normal' Amiga, Mac, Windows, etc, horizontal menubars
can't do well (yet). one is that you can repeatedly hit any items you want. In
any menu displayed, so you don't have to 'start over' to muck about in the
menu heirarchy. This is much more intuitive and obvious- and dare I say
quicker? Than using the second mouse button to do the same trick.

(the other thing it can do well is tear off the menus- just grab the
dragbar and pull. Just like a window. On the NeXT this stuff is
ao obvious it's scary.)

>>> How do tear off menus fit in with your idea of the Mac's menu superiority?
>
>>Some applications feature tear-off menus. (Hypercard, for example)
>
>>> Kind of ruins the whole idea, doesn't it?
>
>>No, not at all.
>
>If the one-button mouse/infinite height menu bar is the wonder you claim
>it is, why do you need tear-off menus? Hypercard is one of the Mac's
>very well known packages, no? Then why the major change in UI?

Hmmm?

To be precise, Hypercard (and MacPaint for htat matter) supports
tear off PALETTES, not menus. The "real" menus (file, edit, etc)
are still solidly affixed to the menubar in all Mac apps. However
some apps put their pattern lists or tool lists there to save
screen space. For convinience, they let you grab it and pull it off
so you can have a 'real' palette, which provides visual feedback about
the sort of modes you are in, and makes looking through the palette
a bit easier. (and so on). Personally, I see it more of sticking
a tool-bar or palette into the menubar to save space than tearing
off a hunk of menu and ploping it on the screen.

However, it mystifies me that you think that, if tear-offs WERE
implemented fully, somehow this would detract from having a backstop
on your menubar.

---
			- 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.