From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Defense of CLI (there, I changed the subject ... )
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:43:53 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

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:
>>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.  

Interesting. It guess it depends on what kind of information you want to
communicate.

I guess we can subdivide the issue here. If we are talking about written
language, certainly the keyboard is a much more effective instrument for
creating written language than a mouse. If we are talking about creating
drawings, certainly the mouse (or tablet) is a much more effective
instrument.

Can we agree on that?

Now, the issue boils down to this. Which is more effective form of 
communication WITH A COMPUTER? Written language, or draw (gestural)
language. Interesting question, no?

> 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?

Good question. I could give you directions, but I'd have to be sure
you came by a certain route, in a certain way, and be careful I didn't
miss anything on the way. You'd have to follow my instructions exactly,
and you could easily get lost if you missed an instruction, or found one
that was ambiguous.

Now, if I could show you a map, there's no ambiguity. You'd know exactly
where to do regardless of your direction or orientation.

Of course, for such a direction-giving system, having the map would certainly
be easier than having to draw it. However, when events occur that involve
inviting a large number of people, aren't maps much more popular (and
certainly less ambiguous) than directions?

>>And the keyboard requires no training at all?
> 
> Sure it does.  It requres more training than the mouse.  

Good. So the training aspect isn't an issue, really.

>>> 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.  

Again, this isn't the issue. We're not asking, "can someone be taught to
press a particular key." We're asking, "can someone be taught so they
know then have to press a particular key to get a particular action."

Yes they can, but it takes much more effort than simply getting them to
type "C" without meaning. It is certainly simpler and easier to get them
to choose the actions with the mouse.

>>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"?  

What would a 4 year old want to do? They might want to draw or color pictures,
since they can't express themselves verbally in written language.

>>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.

Well, I'm an adult, and I'm taking piano lessons. Kid or not, it is
doggone difficult to play music from a piano!

> This argument about what two-year olds can do is becoming very tiresome.
> How does this apply to what you or I can do?  

COGNITIVE skills that you acquire at an early age are easy for you to do.
That's the point. That's why what a two-year old can do is important.

>>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.

I had AI courses in college. We covered vision, linguistic systems and
robots (very limited). 

Computer vision is a good example. No computerised system of vision has yet
been created that is comparable to my own. Consider that more processing is
performed each second in my left eyeball than is possible using all the
crays in the world. Computers have a damned difficult time with vision.

Yet, I do it without effort. And that's the point. Humans and Robots specialise
in different things. A human can easily point out a bolt hidden in other
hardware, robots find this difficult. Conversely, a robot might be able
to tell you the cube root of 908492.3423 faster than a human.

>>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.
>>
>>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.

I haven't found this to be true. Indeed, I find nothing in a mouse 
interface that would require the expression of language skills.

And the symbolic use of a keyboard (up arrows, right arrows) is certainly much
more cumbersome than a mouse.

>>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."  

But it takes tons of brainpower to synthesize and decompose the sentense
and understand it. Put that in your AI course and smoke it!

> 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.

True, but humans can instantly recognise and compensate for this.

>>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.

Well, we certainly are able to do a lot of communicating with body language
without be conciously aware of it!

> You can't combine components of body language to say something that no
> one has ever said before, and have someone understand it.  

True. That's partly why semantic language is useful. But there are tons of
stuff everyday that we say over and over.

And, when we are dealing with computers, we tend to say the same things
over and over. Computers have an extremely limited vocabulary, and are
not receiptive to ideas.

> 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.

"What is man, that thou art mindful of him?"

My personal theory is that it has nothing to do with language. (There are
other animals that have language)

My personal theory is that the one element that separates men from animals
is history. But, that is really off the subject....

>>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, 

QUICK! CALL VIENNA! A SENTIENT COMPUTER!

> 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.  

Computers understand nothing. They merely mindlessly carry out instructions.

Of you think that computers actually understand ideas, then you need to
go back and take a refresher course in AI....

> I'd like the ability to express my ideas in words as well as gestures 
> if you don't mind.

Not at all. Just don't try to telegraph them to you computer. You might as
well be talking to a brick wall....

> BTW I'm a fellow Extra:  AA7QL :-)

Good to have you! 73!
> 
-- 
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.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy