From: db3l@ans.net (David Bolen)
Newsgroups: fj.mail-lists.x-window
Subject: Re: GUIs Considered Harmful
Date: 9 Sep 92 04:10:48 GMT
Distribution: fj
Organization: Advanced Network & Services, Inc. - Elmsford, NY

Date: 8 Sep 92 17:52:59 GMT
Message-Id: <1992Sep08.215240.49778@ans.net>
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x,comp.human-factors

In article <3243@isgtec.isgtec.com> mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers) writes:

>mouse@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu (der Mouse) writes:
>> Oh, the subjects were just basically incompetent in general.  If it
>> takes as long as *one* second to decide which key to press, I consider
>> myself "idling".  I type well over 100wpm when I don't have to stop and
>> decide what I want to type next.  If I know what I want to do, and what
>> key I need to press to do it, it will eat up perhaps .05 second.
>
>Unless you've had yourself independently timed, I doubt strongly whether
>_any_ of these numbers are correct -- I think a reaction time of 0.05 second
>may be impossible given the rate of neural impulses from your eye, through
>your brain, down your spine, and out to your hands.  People almost always 
>think they type, press, and generally react *much* faster than they actually 
>do.

On the other hand - why are these numbers so off?  Two or three years ago I
was timed at a sustained text input of 150wpm (maybe not "well over" 100wpm,
but probably close), and for particularly familiar sequences can achieve burst
rates higher than that (or significantly lower than that if numbers are
involved).  Using an average of 4 characters/word (I think that's about
right), even ignoring the spaces I type about 10cps, or 0.1s per character.

Now if I can type (think, move fingers, depress key, etc..) a character in
0.1s, why can't my reaction time component of that be in the .05s range?
Maybe I'm at the high end of the typing spectrum (actually, I'm pretty sure I
am), but not unrealistic.

>On the other hand, if you really do type "well over" 100wpm then you are
>at the far end of the typing-speed spectrum.  Given this, your needs and
>abilities do not conform to the needs and abilities of the vast majority 
>of computer users; you cannot judge them by looking at yourself.

Ok, maybe I'll buy that.  But that doesn't invalidate either of our thoughts
on the use of rodents (I happen to strongly agree with der Mouse (is that a
proper name?) in this area), does it?

My personal opinion has always been that I don't mind the mouse so much (it
can even be helpful if I've been away from a program for a while), but please,
please, please, please be sure and give me a keyboard shortcut so I don't
*have* to use it.  Especially if the application involves text input and
manipulation.

>> When I find a GUI in which I can make a menu selection in .1 second
>> with the mouse, I'll stop griping about how much it slows me down.  I'm
>> not exactly holding my breath :-)
>
>Nor am I.  I feel confident in saying that you cannot type in the 
>abbreviated version of your favorite command in 0.1 second either.  
>An interface (GUI, CLI, or whatever) would have to have direct 
>cortex-connect to achieve such speeds.  

Well, if the abbreviation is a single letter, I guarantee I could.  Maybe even
2 or three characters if it's a very familiar sequence that's reasonably
efficient from a touch typist's point of view.  I might even throw in the CR
for free :-)

I'd also be willing to time myself editing a file with Emacs versus some
mouse-oriented editor.  Some items involving selection and pointing may be
easier with the mouse, but I'd probably put money on the fact that I could
complete the task faster with Emacs.

--
-- David
--
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
 \              David Bolen             \  Internet: db3l@ans.net      /
  |   Advanced Network & Services, Inc.   \   Phone: (914) 789-5327   |
 / 100 Clearbrook Road, Elmsford, NY 10523  \   Fax: (914) 789-5310    \
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------/