From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:56:15 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <strobl.718757688@gmd.de>, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
> In <6170.2ad5a35b@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
> 
>>In article <strobl.718461278@gmd.de>, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>[I wrote:]
>>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.
> 
> This depends a lot on the characteristics of the system. If there is
> a big, visible difference between the look and feel of an application
> window and a dialog box, the user probably won't recognize the 
> dialog box as just another window. But if the dialog box looks
> and works like a window, it's different. In addition, it is
> always visible which window the focus has. 

A dialog box is part of the application. If it has completely different
looks, then this breeds more inconsistancy. The user will think the dialog
is a separate application, or something entirely different. He will fail
to recognize the association between an application action and the resulting
dialog. He will subsequently become more confused when he attempts to switch
back to his application (which he can't do, since the dialog is the application)

> For me, its much more obvious that my keyboard actions apply
> to the active window and it's menu (if it has one) and its
> buttons et al, that that some remote menu bar works on one
> of many visible windows.

Ah then looks are deceiving. Indeed, you can Paste into the dialog box! But
only if you use the CORRECT shortcuts. If you use the ALT-shortcuts, you
can't!

That's even worse for Windows then. The user can't even recognise the
facilities the application can perform, since he is blocked by his previous
learning. Shame.

>>> 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.
> 
> Indeed. It's not what I would expect in a system with a SINGLE application.
> 
> The Macintoshs user interface design (as far as I know about, which isn't
> that much) is better than the Windows one, as long as there is only
> one, single application in use. For multiple applications, its worse.

I disagree. 

But, you are changing the subject. The objection I raised wasn't about
multiple applications, but inconsistancy within a single application.

You windows types keep dancing around to avoid the subject at hand --
inconsistancy!

>>> 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.
> 
> Of course it's modal. If you just have launched the 'open document' dialog,
> you are in the mode of opening a document. It doesn't make much sense to
> reenter that dialog a second time, from within the first dialog.

No, I was saying that the menu navigation was modal. Press ALT and release,
and you are stuck in menu mode. It may or may not be obvious to you. That's
pretty awful behavior for an interface. Modes are to be avoided, hidden
modes shunned. 

As for the open document -- it is modal, but it is a visible mode. It is
also necessary coming from an application -- a necessary evil of flexibility.

> I can imagine a fully recursive user interface, where you could
> use a secondary file dialog to paste the content of a file into the name
> field of the first dialog, just by using the very same menu bar,
> but I can't imagine myself explaining *that* to a user. 

Wolfgang, I didn't want to do anything complicated. I just wanted to paste
a name into a dialog. Just that. I couldn't using the ALT-EP shortcut. Don't
make it out like this is something that is too complicated to accomidate.
Windows can do it. It just does it inconsistantly.

>>Funny. As a long-time Mac user, I can recite all the standard shortcuts 
>>from memory. And my fingers know them quite well. 
> 
> That's because "standard shortcuts", as implemented by the Mac
> and the keyboard interface to menu bars and dialog boxes on
> Windows a two different things. Windows has "standard" shortcuts
> (called "accelerators"), in addition.   I.e. Alt d f and Ctrl+v
> are two different things. 

Yup, and that is EXACTLY the problem. There's two different types of shortcuts.
One type works in all cases. The other type only works some of the time. If
you learn the wrong type, you end up thinking the program can't do things at
certain times that you CAN do with the other shortcuts.

> I too rememember the standard shortcuts
> like Ins, Del, PgUp and so on, mostly because they are separate
> keys on the standard PC keyboard (the one just recently adapted
> on the Macintosh, if I'm not mistaken). 

You are mistaken. The extended keyboard has offered these keys since 1987.
That's not recently adopted.

>>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.
> 
> Not so. My fingers reside on the keyboard. Even if I have to do a short
> look at the menu bar (I'm looking at window, anyway), it is much simpler to
> just type one letter than to remove the right hand from the keyboard, to
> locate the mouse, to look back to the screen, to find the cursor, to move
> it to the menu entry (which I've lost while looking for the mouse) and to
> click at that entry.

You are WRONG. You are forgetting the time it takes to think about all these
things. You are concentrating only on the time it takes to move your hand
or fingers and aren't taking into consideration the time it takes to move
your brain. 

There's a greater cognitive load trying to recall or synthesize the keyboard
shortcuts. Because of this, it APPEARS that the keyboard shortcut is
faster, because your brain is so busy trying to compute the right key
to press. With the mouse, you don't have to think about it, you just have
to move the mouse. This is such an easy operation that your brain gets
bored, and you PERCEIVE that it takes forever.

The stopwatch tells a different story. Read "Tog on the Interface."

(BTW, why do you look away from the screen? Why do you have to find the 
 mouse cursor? I grab my mouse without looking at it. I find the mouse
 cursor instantly (sometimes I make a small circular motion to find it).
 I move my hand back to the keyboard without looking. It only takes about
 two months of practice to learn these skills. Compared to typing, that's
 a very short time to become proficient.)

>>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.
> 
> Why didn't you use the Ins key? I use it all the time, it is easily
> reachable, and it works everywhere.

Because I fell into the trap. I thought that the ALT-stuff was more 
mnemonic. To use the Ins keys, I had to look away from the screen and find
the INS key. And I never could remember if paste was Ctrl-Ins or Shift-Ins.
(I've now learned that it is Shift-Ins) More time wasted.

Of course, now that I've learned this, MS has changed the rules, and
some applications are going to be using Ctrl-V. INCONSISTANT!

> ;-) :-) Got you. I'm using a German version of Windows. 

That's certainly unfair of you.... <grin>

>>> 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.
> 
> Hm. To me, the Ctrl+C shortcut is very nonintuitive.

It doesn't have to be intuitive. Just consistant. Once you've learned the
non-intuitive lesson, you've learned it for all applications.

However, an interface element that is both non-intuitive and inconsistant
is practically unlearnable.

>>> 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.
> 
> Where did you find three key sequences? 

<ALT> <E> <P> That's three keys.

>>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.
> 
> Write has it under the File menu. But you're right, shortcuts
> (those equivalent to Command-O, not the keyboard/menu interface)
> could be more standard between Windows applications. 

AH! Vindication!

> Many don't have any shortcuts, and if they have, they aren't always identical.

EXACTLY!

> Microsoft seems to have standardized on Ctrl+F12 for File Open
> (the use it in Word and Excel), but it isn't standardized enough
> to be usefull. I don't use them often. On the other hand, people
> are different - I know others who like them: Ctrl+F12, Ins,
> Shift+F3, Enter ..., so I'm not so fast to condem that feature.

I HATE F-key shortcuts. The F-keys are never in the same place on two
keyboards, and one-handed manipulations with some of the modifier keys
are next to impossible.

>>>>And as soon as you try to use one of those ALT- shortcuts in a dialog,
>>>>WHAMMO -- all that learning goes out the window.

>>Nope. You can't do a Paste using the ALT+ shortcuts. You have to do 
>><taking deep breath> Ctrl-Ins. 
> 
> If the window you are typing to has an Edit menu which has a Paste
> entry, you can do a Paste using the Alt+letter shortcuts. If it
> hasn't, you can't. 

But you can always paste with the Shift-Ins or Ctrl-V shortcut.

>>Or if the application is more progressive, Ctrl-V.
> 
> Why is this more progressive? Just because MS decided to
> support a handfull of Macintosh shortcuts in their applications,
> in addition?

It is more progressive because MS changed the standard. The standard
used to be Shift-Ins. MS changed it this year. So, if your application
keeps up with the latest standards, it is more progressive.

> Using the clearly labeled "insert" key for an insert operation
> is more progressive, IMHO.

It is undeniably cumbersom, IMHO.

>>From using it. ARGH!
> 
> It is my impression that you use Windows just enough to be able
> to complain about its shortcomings, and the Macintosh so much
> that you can't see its shortcomings, anymore.

That may be true. I have a lot of coworkers who feel the same way,
and they use Windows a lot more than I do.

Windows is tons better than DOS. I had to do a bunch of DOS related
stuff recently. Going to Windows the next week was like a breath of
fresh air. I felt much more at ease. 

Windows is better than DOS, but it ain't no Macintosh, that's for
sure.

>>I disagree. The pointing device is a natural extension of real-world learning.
> 
> Sorry, I'm lost here. Care to explain 
>  - what that means, and
>  - how it applies to my above statement?

You learn how to reach out and grab things from when you were just a dozen
months old. Using a mouse is an application of that learning.

Using a mouse is easier than using a keyboard, just for that reason. Given
the choice between a computer with and without a mouse, I'd choose the one
with a mouse (or other pointing device). So, I can't see how using an
interface without the mouse is a benefit.

> Pointing at things is used in real-world learning. Mostly it's the
> teacher, who does the pointing ("look, boy, that is a horse"). Most
> of the time, there is no device necessary to do the pointing, because
> it's either implicit, or unnecessary, because a finger or an arm
> is sufficient. 

You continue to grasp things in the real world every day of your life. Using
the mouse is just an extension of that experience. You don't have to speak
to do that. That's the advantage.

> In addition, many people have bad memories about pointing
> devices in real-world learning context (cane), so it isn't that
> good an idea to force that upon them. 1/2 ;-)

I don't understand this reference. Are you saying that people don't like
pointing devices because they are spanked?

>>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.
> 
> For computers which don't have a keyboard at all, I aggree.

Even for computers which have a keyboard.

>>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.
> 
> You're barking before the wrong tree (I hope I got that picture right :-).

No I'm not. Paste will work from a dialog, but not if you use the ALT 
shortcuts. If they would, then I'd be happier. That's all I'm saying.

> Menus are attached to windows on Windows, so you can't expect the 
> keyboard navigation to work on some global menu. 

That's not what I'm saying. Go back and look at what I wrote. I'm not asking
Windows to do anything it can't already do. I'm asking that it do it 
consistantly.

> This concept doesn't exist there. Alt e p is local to a windows. Many 
> shortcuts, including the insert key interpretation, are - more or less - 
> global, because they are a feature of certain standard child windows, 
> which are used almost everywhere.

If this is your reasoning, than I submit that this is radically piss-poor
user interface design. The user doesn't care about the internal architecture
of keyboard interpretation. He just wants an interface that works cleanly
and consistantly. Windows doesn't give you that.

>>> 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.
> 
> YOu can't have experience in that area as a Macintosh user, because
> that feature doesn't exist on a Macintosh.

See the next sentense.

>>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.
> 
> No. As a experienced Macintosh user, you have a blind spot, here.
> If I where a experienced Macintosh user, I would have that blind spot,
> too, probably.

I don't think so. I asked three experienced Windows users what the shortcut
for a certain common menu was, THe response I get back is that they don't
know, or they give me the wrong answer. I could ask three experienced mac
users the same question, and they would all give me the right answer.

That's that the consistancy of the interface does. It simplifies learning,
not compound it.

>>The beauty of a visual user interface is that YOU DON'T HAVE TO. You
>>don't have to READ just RECOGNIZE.
> 
>>In a CONSISTANT visual user interface, it is even better, because recognition
>>is faster since you already know what to expect!
> 
> Indeed. But all this is a feature of the visual interface, not of
> the pointing device. The pointing device isn't necessary.

Once you transition to the keyboard, you lose the connection to your basic
real-world experience. If you can't reach out and grab it, you have to
recall or synthesize some sonomic sequence of keys to use it. That's
where it breaks down.

To complete the visual interface, you must have direct interaction. You can't
(yet) get that without a pointing device. And a keyboard isn't the answer.

>>> 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.
> 
> Exactly why?

Because you don't have to recall anything. You reach out and grab it with
the mouse. Just like you reach out an grab your coffee cup. You don't
have to remember to type "<ALT>-"C"offee-"G"rab.

>>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.
> 
> I can't speak for Peter. 
> 
> A few comments. Windows has - and this is indeed different from the Mac -
> more than one method to interact with menus and dialog boxes. 

This is true. And having more than one method to do things isn't necessarily
a good thing.

> There are 
>  - the mouse interface,
>  - cursor navigation,
>  - the Alt+character navigation and
>  - the shortcuts (called accelerators).
> 
> The fact that there are four instead of two methods may increase
> the cognitive load. On the other hand, one could argue that
> the confusion is already there, even on the Macintosh, because
> there are *two* different ways to do the same thing. If you 
> can ignore one way, why shouldn't you be able to ignore the others?

It isn't the number of methods that increase cognitive load, it is the methods
themselves. Cursor navigation, ALT keys, and even the accelerators are probably
all slower than using the mouse.

Now, if you restrict yourself to the accelerators, then you almost have it
as good as the Mac. Unfortunately, since there's no consistancy, your learning
isn't as complete as on the Mac. 

Worse, you end up learning to use the ALT navigation, and your life is even
slower, and you end up doing things the "wrong" way at times.

> Personally, I use all four methods, often interleaved, i.e.
> I click at some menue entry, read the pop-up menu, and continue
> with the cursor keys or a letter. Or I start with the Alt+letter
> and continue with the mouse. It depends on how crowded the
> menus are, whether I've already memorized them, where my
> fingers are and what I try to do. I seems to be quite fast
> to me, but this is purely subjective. 

If I were to sit down and time you, I believe I'd find that using the 
mouse is much faster. And that's the entire issue. You PERCEIVE the
keyboard shortcuts are faster because of their higher cognitive load.

>>> 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. 
> 
> Then you must have a very good visual memory. 

I do, actually. And it is funny some of the things I can't remember. I'm
not particularly great with names, but I do OK with numbers. Go figure.

> Anyway. My point was that the ability to verbally reproduce a 
> menu handling action in a discussion isn't a good indication
> of whether the method in question is a good one or not.

1/2 agreed. Except the action I'm asking for is an exceedingly common
one. There should be hundreds of opportunities to learn the correct
response.

>>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.
> 
> Just like if you can't rememember the positions it proves the inconsistancy?

You don't have to specify the positions down to the pixel. That's the beauty
of the visual interface.

You do have to specify the keyboard shortcuts.

>>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.
> 
> Yes, faster, if the conditions are right. If you already look at the
> item. If you have your hand on the mouse. If you know where your pointer
> is. If you look at the item, but have you hand on the keyboard and 
> you don't know where the pointer is, it is much faster - and 
> simpler (less cognitive load) - if you just press the letter which you
> see underlined in the word you are looking at.

If you have your hand on the keyboard, you move it to the mouse (without
looking at it). If you don't know where the cursor is, you move the mouse
in a tiny circle and find it. As soon as you spot it, you move right
to your destination. You can do all this without breaking your train of 
thought.

In comparison with the keyboard, you have to actually read the word, find
the right letter (which requires semantic cognition) and then type it. This
is a much greater cognitive load. 

Case in point. There are retarted people in the world that can't spell
anything, and would have a difficult time matching the letter on the
screen with the letter on the keyboard. These same people can use a mouse
to grab something on the screen. That's lower cognitive load.

> And if you don't look at the item (i.e. menue entry, command, action
> to trigger) in question, its even faster, you just repeat the
> memorized keystroke sequence 

Except you have to REMEMBER the correct sequence. (And remember, you
experienced windows users couldn't do this. <grin>)

And the second roadblock is that if you do remember a sequence it may
not work because a) you are in an application that does things differently,
or b) you're in the wrong state (dialog box in front)

>>> 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 how to compare these.
> 
> Anyway. I say that I prefer my house to have more than one
> way out, and you answer that one shouldn't rate a house by
> its number of doors.

Only if your house has lots of doors, but floors of different
heights and slope. I'd rather have level floors of the same 
height and fewer doors.

-- 
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