From: terry@squid9.cuc.ab.ca (Terry Wilcox)
Subject: Re: More on mouse buttons (was: Macintosh advocacy (really!))
Reply-To: terry@squid9.cuc.ab.ca
Organization: Not Really, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 04:38:01 GMT

In article <6526.2b278fc4@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
> In article <1992Dec5.005242.13730@cuug.ab.ca>, wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance  
Wilcox 229-3361) writes:
> > 
> > Which means that everyone suffers additional cognitive load with a one
> > button mouse. You still have to choose between a single click and a double
> > click. If one button is set to do single click things and the other is
> > set to do double click things (with only one click), what's the difference?
> 
> I can think of two important differences. 
> 
> * A single click and a double click still engage the same finger to perform  
the
>   clicking. There's less independance of the appendage needed. No decision 
>   there.
> 

What do you mean no decision? You have to decide how many times to click.

> * A double click should invoke a function that is a shortcut for a single
>   click as a rule. The double click function shouldn't be NECESSARY for the
>   operation of the program. For example, in the Finder, you can single
>   click then File / Open documents, applications, folders, etc.
> 

That's a fair bit of cognitive load, isn't it? After all, you have to click  
once, then select a menu, then select an action. Clicking the other button once  
is a great deal less strenuous.

> 
> > I can't type nearly as fast as I think so I don't see that the extra 
> > 'cognitive load' will slow me down that much, if at all. 
> 
> The nature of "cognitive load" is that you don't notice it. Ever been so
> busy that you look at the clock and realise it is really late? That's 
> an example of timing effects of cognitive load. You won't realise it is
> taking any time, because your brain is busy making decisions.
> 

So if I don't notice time going by, what's the big deal?

> 
> The key difference here is that double-clicking is an OPTIONAL behavior,
> whereas a two-button mouse is a PERMANENT behavior.
> 

Not a valid argument. My two button mouse has an optional behavior. Double  
clicking may be optional, but the single click/menu option takes more cognitive  
load. Therefore, people should be forced to use a double click because it takes  
less cognitive load.

> > But there is confusion over whether to click or double click. I get people
> > like that in my Mac lab all the time. They double click everything.
> 
> Does it really hurt them? Do they end up with the wrong action?
> 

As a matter of fact, yes. The first click does the right thing (say 'Cancel' on  
a panel or something), but the second click goes somewhere. It's not  
immediately apparent to them that that second click did something. They don't  
notice until their next action. It can have interesting results.

On the other hand, if I click the wrong button, I get a menu. Big deal. If I  
want the menu and click the wrong button, I get a random click somewhere, just  
like unwanted double clicks.

> > 
> > Clicking the button the wrong number of times is just as likely as
> > getting the wrong button.
> 
> Interesting hypothesis. Perhaps you should conduct an experiment to see
> if it is true or not.
> 

Why should I? People will just refute the results anyway. There's a complete  
lack of non-biased people in the computer industry. We all skew reality to fit  
our perceptions. :) :)

> 
> > This 'my mouse is better than your mouse' argument is silly. 
> 
> Then why did these Amig-o-philes bring it up?
> 

They feel a need to legitimize the machine. They see the Mac as the only true  
competitor for the Amiga (quite flattering to the Mac) and are irritated when  
Mac users put down the machine due to hearsay. I rarely hear a Mac user say  
'I've got both machines and the Mac is better.' Most say 'I used an Amiga once  
and it wasn't as good as the Mac I worship.'

Of course, talk of 'cognitive load' forced them to respond. It's such a  
non-issue that they can't believe people would use it in a discussion. I  
personally prefer to deal with reality, not pop-science. I refuse to believe in  
cognitive load, cold fusion, and black holes (they're not holes and nobody has  
proven that they exist. I understand the theory, but there's no concrete  
proof).

Terry Wilcox

-- 
Terry Wilcox		| 'Next to the originator of a good sentence 
terry@squid9.cuc.ab.ca	| is the first quoter of it.'
NeXTmail welcome	|  - RALPH WALDO EMERSON
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy