From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh advocacy (really!)
Date: 20 Dec 92 17:41:17 EDT
Followup-To: 085209.2682 references:  <bmccnnll.722784079@unix1.tcd.ie>
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Dec8.192559.90786@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>, bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>> bmccnnll@unix1.tcd.ie (Barry McConnell) writes:
>>> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>>>>Amiga users suffer endlessly from the additional cognitive load required of
>>>>the multi-button mice. Sure, you can probably explain the use of both
>>>>buttons in a few minutes of training, but building proficiency to the point
>>>>of reflex takes much longer, and you are never completely rid of the
>>>>hesitency of deciding which button to press.
>>>
>>> There is _no confusion_ over which button you press.
>>
>> Denial is such an ugly thing.
>>
>> Sure there is. Every time you go to press the mouse button, you have
>> to think about it. Subtly, impulsively, but consistantly.
>>
>>> I used a Mac (regularly) long before I ever bought my first Amiga, and
>>> the transition from a one-button mouse to a two-button mouse was hardly a
>>> drastic change in my life. Deciding which mouse button to press is an
>>> unconscious decision, taking up no appreciable time.
>>
>> Ah!
>>
>> You agree that a decision must be made. Therefore, unconscious or not, some
>> time must be spent making that decision.
>>
>> If you compare that to a one-button mouse system, where NO decision must be
>> made, then obviously the two-button mouse system must be slower.
>>
>> QED.
> 
>         I've seen some pedantry in my time, but *this* takes the cake.
> "A 1 button mouse is superior to a 2 button mouse because you spend less
> time thinking about which button to press". As if the fraction of a second
> that it takes is going to make a mesurable difference. "Wow, I saved a
> whole 17.4 seconds of work time today, thanks to my 1 button mouse".

Exactly. Now you are catching on.

>         Just how much time are you suggesting that someone would actually
> save in an hour Bill?

Well, the time itself is probably more significant that you think. Of course,
this time is difficult to measure. In subjective terms, you don't notice this
time lapse at all, since your brain is busy with the decision.

However, precise measurement of the 17.4 seconds each hour (or whatever)
neglects the OTHER important aspect of cognitive loading.

If a two-button mouse user must dedicate some portion of his mental
facilities to deciding which button to press, then those facilities aren't
working on the problem at hand -- the task he's trying to complete. Instead,
they are being wasted trying to figure out how to use the computer. 

The one-button mouse, being a simpler interface, doesn't suffer from this
load, and hence the mind is freer to focus in on the task at hand.

>         You say you've used an amiga Bill, but for how long? If you're
> only exposure to a 2 button mouse has been intermittant and for short
> periods, you're not making a fair comparison.

While this is true, my experience with the Amiga (and other two-button systems)
may not be sufficiently long enough for your desires -- the length of my
use of these systems has absolutely nothing to do with the facts.

>         I use an Amiga (2 buttons) and a unix workstation (3 buttons)
> on a daily basis. I also use a Mac and MS Windows on a semi regular
> basis (at least 2 days a week). Once the user has had time to
> "acclimatise" to a particular interface, the time required to make
> decisions on what button to press becomes so small as to no longer be
> an issue.

Again, by the nature of cognitive load, the subjective time is very small,
but the actual time (and loss of "focus") is very real, and much larger.
You probably don't "notice" the lost time. 

>>>>I disagree. My experience in user interface design has shown repeatedly that
>>>>it is possibly to convey the same (or more!) functionality in simpler
>>>>designs than in complex ones. Plus, it is easier to master.
>>>
>>> Look at the Archimedes; they have *three* buttons, and still sometimes
>>> wish there were more! :-)
>>
>> I'm not familiar with Archimedes. Sounds like they are perpetuating a bad
>> user interface.
> 
>         Bravo Bill, ignorance *is* bliss, isn't it. First of all you say
> you're not familiar with the Archimedes. Then you contend that it has a
> bad user interface. Since you're not familiar with it, what evidence do
> you have for how good or bad it is? By the number of buttons on the mouse?
> You really are stretching credulity using that as your argument.

Not at all. I just said that simpler interfaces are better. You stated that
Archimedes uses three buttons and you wished there were more.

Based on that piece of information, I simply stated that it "sounds like
they are perpetuating a bad interface." I made that statement solely on the
information I had on hand -- your comments.

If I had further information, I could more accurately judge the quality of
the interface. My credibility is intact.

>>>>False. Name one thing you can't do on a Mac that you can do on an Amiga
>>>>because the Mac is missing a mouse button.
>>>
>> Nope. You certainly missed my point. While the Macintosh METHODS may differ,
>> you can certainly accomplish the same task with a slightly different user
>> interface approach.
>>
>> Just because the Mac doesn't use the same user interface methods doesn't mean
>> it can't perform the same tasks.
>>
>> Again, I'd like you to name something you can't do on a Mac that you can on
>> an Amiga just because the Mac is missing a mouse button. I'm talking user
>> tasks, not specific user interface methods.
> 
>         But the two are tied together Bill. The interface will define the
> meathods used to perform the tasks. You can't split the two, especially
> when you are comparing two  partially similar (and thereby partially
> different) systems.

Tasks are totally independant of the interface. Quit looking at the pixel
on the screen. Look at what the user is trying to do. Why is he selecting
things from a menu? Is a menu the best interface? Are there other interfaces
which could do the same thing more easily? Is this menu needed at all?

>         I put it to you that your whole argument is flawed because the
> perspective you are arguing from (your own experience) is too limited
> to make a valid evaluation of non-mac interfaces.

My argument isn't solely based on my opinion. It is based on the facts. You
can't explain away cognitive load because the other person you are debating
with has less first-hand experience with it.

If your argument is only based on your opinion, then it won't wash. Denial
is indeed, and ugly thing.

-- 
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