HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: palmer@icat.larc.nasa.gov (Michael T. Palmer)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: Seperation of Church and Elevators
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:33:47 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: icat.larc.nasa.gov

bassi@cs.unibo.it (Bruno Bassi) writes:

>For this particular case, I think that a horizontal representation, with
>"left" and "right" arrows, would do much better. I find it natural to think at
>the "right" direction as the direction where things increase (probably
>because texts grow rightwards). And, if you spatialise numbers, you get

>     0  1  2  3  4  .  .  .

>which also works.

>Any comments?

Well, er, yes.  You may find it natural for text to grow rightward, but
people who read right-to-left (Hebrew, etc.) or bidirectionally (can't
remember this one) may not find it natural at all.  Up/Down may not be
the best, but in this case it is a less restricting choice, especially
when you consider how internationally these products are marketed.

I agree that there's got to be a better way, and I'm sure someone will
design something that makes us all feel pretty stupid for not thinking of
it before.  :-)

-- 
Michael T. Palmer, M/S 152, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681
Voice: 804-864-2044,   FAX: 804-864-7793,   Email: m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov
PGP 2.0 Public Key now available -- Consider it an envelope for your e-mail
From: gary@CIS.Prime.COM (Gary Parden)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: Click to Raise Windows vs. Point to Rais
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:25:01 GMT
Reply-To: gary@CIS.Prime.COM
Organization: Computervision R&D Ltd

In article 1ef01cINNpo4@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU, atwoodj@CS.ORST.EDU (John Atwood) writes:
 >What's _mouse warping_?

Normally, you move the mouse, and the pointer on the screen moves in
sympathy.  Mouse warp is where the system anticipates your responses
and moves (or warps) the pointer to where it thinks you want it to be
without you having to move the mouse.

For example, a popup is displayed and you are required to respond by
pushing a button. The system anticipates your response and moves the
pointer to the button ready for you to push it.

If the system anticipates correctly, this can be a great help. If not,
it can easily render a system unusable.

p.s. 

I think the term 'warp' is taken from science fiction, e.g. the 'warp'
drive of Star Trek fame.

p.p.s

I don't know if the term 'mouse warp' is common usage worldwide, but it
does seem to describe the phenomenon rather well. :-)

---
Gary Parden.	Computervision R&D, Harston, Cambridge CB2 5NH, UK
gary@cis.prime.com	Tel +44 223 872377	Fax +44 223 870131
From: brian@dsm.fordham.edu (Brian Downing)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: Seperation of Church and Elevators
Date: 22 Nov 92 15:15:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: dsm.BRIAN.92Nov22101539
Organization: Fordham University/CLC, Division of Science and Math


 I was thinking along similar lines with one minor modification.
 Because the simple '+' and '-' may easily be misinterpreted as
 arithmetic operators I would like to suggest the '++' and '--'
 increment and decrement operators from C.  They could easily become
 new international symbols for incrementing by one or decrementing by
 one.  The nice thing is that these could work just like they do C.
 When referring to an ordinal or enumerated data type they would
 represent adding or subtracting by one element of that type. 
 i.e.    ... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 ... 
              [ 'a' 'b' 'c'...  (naturally watching for boundaries)

 When used in a linked list or hypercard stack it would increment a
 pointer by the correct size to point to the next item in the list
 or on the stack.


--

 Brian...

 brian downing@->fordham university, nyc ny
         brian@dsm.fordham.edu       bdowning@mary.fordham.edu
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
From: asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper)
Subject: Re: robots in our bodies
Organization: Southwestern Bell Technology Resources, St.Louis, MO
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 16:10:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.223231.11974@bsu-ucs> 00jhritter@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
>I have been hearing a lot lately about the possibly that some day robots will
>become so small that they could be injected into the blood stream to fight  
>diseases or clean out clogged artieries.  Does any think this is possible?
>Does any think this could lead to mind control?  How would this effect our
>future?  Please reply, my grade depends on it!!

Could you re-post this, please? Ever since the CIA planted that darn 
radio in my brain, the voices from Neptune have blurred my vision.

Alan
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: robots in our bodies
From: alanb@sdl.mdcbbs.com (Alan Braggins)
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:42:26 GMT
Organization: Shape Data (Division of EDS), Cambridge UK
In-reply-to: smith@ctron.com's message of 17 Nov 92 15:19:01 GMT

>>>>> On 17 Nov 92 15:19:01 GMT, smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith) said:

> In article <1992Nov16.223231.11974@bsu-ucs>, 00jhritter@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
>>I have been hearing a lot lately about the possibly that some day robots will
>>become so small that they could be injected into the blood stream to fight  
>>diseases or clean out clogged artieries.  Does any think this is possible?
>>Does any think this could lead to mind control?  How would this effect our
>>future?  Please reply, my grade depends on it!!

> What a bizarre post.  If your _grade_ depends on it, run, don't walk, to
> your nearest purveyor of quality reading material and obtain the tome:
> "Engines of Creation" by Eric Drexler.  it contains a marvelous summary
> of nano-technology, including the microbots to which you refer. 
[..]
> You might try starting this thread in comp.risks for some real analysis.

Or look in sci.nanotechnology. For some articles on mind-control in the
opposite direction, there were some recent posts on direct neural interfaces
in sci.virtual worlds. Nanobots in the brain might make such sensors easier 
to make or more accurate.

--
     Alan Braggins, alanb@sdl.mdcbbs.com, abraggins@cix.compulink.co.uk
Shape Data - A division of EDS-Scicon Limited.   Cambridge, UK +44-223-316673
   "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
 "My employer does not necessarily share my views - but I'm working on it."
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: Seperation of Church and Elevators
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 11:39:23 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

bassi@cs.unibo.it (Bruno Bassi) writes:
> In article <1992Nov14.213444.25253@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sruland@magnus.
> >however you rarely see them used, but on realy old Otis
> >elevators 1940's (?) And the reasoning was that going up
> >was a good thing (i.e. Heaven) and going down was a bad
> >thing (i.e. red=hell).  The buttons usually carried the
> >redundant colored lights in addition to the up and down
> >arrows.
> 
> The main issue about this whole thing seems to me the following:
> No matter how arbitrary the coding between an interface representation
> or action and the thing it represents or the action it stands for,
> you can *always* with some effort find some sort of "explanation" or 
> mnemonic trick for it.
> But: besides the one you find, there may be other interpretations that
> come quite naturally to other people's minds, and that are misleading.

Quite.  In the UK, traffic lights have red at the top and green at the
bottom.  I would expect people here to associate red with "top" and green
with "bottom" for that reason.

> I want to submit an example, from interfaces as supposedly "good" as
> Mac and Windows. Take a case in which I have to enter a number as a
> parameter, e.g. to set icons spacing in Windows Control Panel. I get a
> small box with the default value, and on one side of it there are two 
> arrows pointing up and down. Now the idea is "push the up arrow to increment
> the number (to get a higher one), and the down arrow to decrement it. 
> Folks, I ALWAYS GET IT WRONG. I do exactly the opposite, and I just
> can't learn it the right way, and no use in RTFM.

Actually, funny you should mention that.  I noticed myself doing just the
same thing yesterday.  I had no idea why I would click on the "down arrow"
button to increment something, but I did it without thinking.  So you are not
alone!

> I understand that, presented with an up-down axis (suggested by the
> arrows), I tend to imagine natural numbers disposed in a vertical row,
> like this:
> 
>    0
>    1
>    2
>    3
>    .
>    .
> 
> Try to see it this way, and you will understand how an "up" arrow could
> naturally yeald a smaller number, and conversely for the "down" one.

Hmm.  Yeah, that makes some sort of sense.  But I think in this case, our
brains are at fault; we're thinking too mathematically.  Probably we're used
to seeing program line numbers or something...

> For this particular case, I think that a horizontal representation, with
> "left" and "right" arrows, would do much better. I find it natural to think a
> the "right" direction as the direction where things increase (probably
> because texts grow rightwards). And, if you spatialise numbers, you get
> 
>      0  1  2  3  4  .  .  .
> 
> which also works.

Sounds like an excellent idea.


mathew
From: jimc@tau-ceti.isc-br.com (Jim Cathey)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: Click to Raise Windows vs. Point to Rais
Date: 20 Nov 92 03:32:22 GMT
Organization: ISC - Bunker Ramo, Spokane, WA

In article <1992Nov19.104126.11247@medusa.prime.com> mike@CIS.Prime.COM writes:
>>  Also, bumping the mouse with your elbow by accident is not harmful
>>  when the mouse works the ONE TRUE WAY. 
>
>Where _do_ you keep your mouse?

On the desktop, next to my swivel chair.  I can spin and hit something,
either the mouse or one of the bazillions of tons of junk scattered on
my desk, and it as often as not is shinbone-to-headbone all the way
to the mouse.  If focus changed, I would not like it.  I want an
_explicit_ action to change somthing like focus or layering order.

Click-to-focus (and raise) works great for me.

Then again, our system has a key sequence to swap the frontmost two
windows (thus changing focus, too).  99% of the time this is all I'm
interested in working in at any one time.  I can change focus, do
something, and put everything back the way it was without the mouse,
even if one window's completely obscured by the other. 

-- 
+----------------+
! II      CCCCCC !  Jim Cathey
! II  SSSSCC     !  ISC-Bunker Ramo
! II      CC     !  TAF-C8;  Spokane, WA  99220
! IISSSS  CC     !  UUCP: uunet!isc-br!jimc (jimc@isc-br.isc-br.com)
! II      CCCCCC !  (509) 927-5757
+----------------+
			One Design to rule them all; one Design to find them.
			One Design to bring them all and in the darkness bind
			them.  In the land of Mediocrity where the PC's lie.
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
From: akm@atlantix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal)
Subject: Re: MAC eject disk into trash issue
Summary: Use command-Y (put away)
Organization: University of Oregon Computer and Information Sciences Dept.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:09:21 GMT

In article <1e8qdvINNac0@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> atwoodj@xanth.CS.ORST.EDU (John Atwood) writes:

[Description of alias for trashcan deleted[

A simpler way would be to select the disk, and then type Command-Y
(Put Away).

kartik



-- 
If you quote my article remember to trim it down to the essentials.
Anant Kartik Mithal, 				akm@cs.uoregon.edu
Network Manager, Ph.D. Student			(503)346-3989
Comp. Science, U of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403  	(503)346-5373 (fax)
From: fj_maddi@csd.uwe.ac.uk (FJ Maddix)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: Click to Raise Windows vs. Point to Raise
Date: 23 Nov 92 10:11:29 GMT
Organization: University of the West of England, Bristol

This is personal opinion, but:
Click-to-raise involves a voluntary attention switch (ie to the input focus)
whereas point-to-raise could just result in confusion as unrelated windows
(all but one of which you do not need) pop up and down.

Also, if Craik & Lockhart's 'levels of processing' theory is right, things
that have had more processing are better learned.

Next question: does 'point-and-click' mean twice as much cognitive processing
as 'point'?

Ask a psychologist.

Frank.
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
From: xiaoyan@ecf.toronto.edu (XIAO Yan)
Subject: set noglob (Re: rm * in Unix)
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:49:13 GMT

Try 
	set noglob
to combat star(*)-phobia. It not only  deals with *, but every other
wild charater as well.

Xiao
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: Seperation of Church and Elevators
Date: 23 Nov 92 19:52:55 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1992Nov19.163325.662@cine88.cineca.it> bassi@cs.unibo.it (Bruno Bassi) writes:
>
>No matter how arbitrary the coding between an interface representation or
>action and the thing it represents or the action it stands for, you can
>*always* with some effort find some sort of "explanation" or mnemonic trick
>for it.  But besides the one you find, there may be other interpretations
>that come quite naturally to other people's minds, and that are misleading.
>If we are not to confuse the user, we have to look for a coding that has the
>fewer number of possible interpretations associated to it.
>
>Take a case in which I have to enter a number as a parameter ... I get a
>small box with the default value, and ... two arrows pointing up and down.
> ... "push the up arrow to increment the number (to get a higher one), and
> the down arrow to decrement it.... I do exactly the opposite ... I tend to
> imagine natural numbers disposed in a vertical row, like this:
[vertical string of numbers, 0 at top, values going up as numbers go down]
>For this particular case, I think that a horizontal representation, with
>"left" and "right" arrows, would do much better. I find it natural to think at
>the "right" direction as the direction where things increase (probably
>because texts grow rightwards)....  Any comments?

Of course.  Several languages "grow" from right to left; and a few "grow" top
down.  Finding a horizontal number string increasing rightward is "natural"
to someone from a Eurocentric culture, but it is no more "natural" per se
than leftward increase or even boucephalic increase (which is only "natural"
in ancient Greek, I think).  IMO it seems much more sensible to expect a
higher number to be placed higher in a vertical string, and a lower number to
be placed lower, e.g.
	...
	5
	4
	3
	...
Perhaps if you evaluated why you expect a higher number to be lower, and a
lower number to be higher, you could become able to handle a vertical string
in which higher numbers are higher and lower ones lower.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244     ----------------------------+
|  There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.     |
|					   --     Mark Twain		      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: atwoodj@CS.ORST.EDU (John Atwood)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: Click to Raise Windows vs. Point to Raise
Date: 19 Nov 92 03:01:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: flop.1ef01cINNpo4
Organization: Computer Science Department, Oregon State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: storm.cs.orst.edu

What's _mouse warping_?
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
From: saul@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Saul Greenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: The Problem With Unix
Date: 16 Nov 92 00:34:27 GMT
Distribution: comp.human-factors
Organization: University of Calgary

Brian So writes:
 >I am doing research on UNIX command line interface problems.

Those interested in this area will want a copy of my PhD thesis, which does
an extensive analysis of how people use Unix (but not quite looking at the
"problems" with Unix, which I think are pretty obvious.)

It will be coming out in January as a book published by Cambridge University
Press titled 
 "The User As Toolsmith: The Use, Reuse and Organization of
  Command-based Interfaces"

Saul Greenberg	(saul@cpsc.ucalgary.ca)
Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary
Calgary, Alberta CANADA T2N 1N4
Phone: (403) 220-6087   Fax: (403) 284-4707
--
_____________________________________________________
Dr Saul Greenberg	(saul@cpsc.ucalgary.ca)
Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary 
Calgary, Alberta CANADA T2N 1N4
Phone: (403) 220-6087   Fax: (403) 284-4707
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors,comp.windows.x
From: fj_maddi@csd.uwe.ac.uk (FJ Maddix)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: Dan Bricklin Demo II and Protoscreens
Date: 19 Nov 92 14:30:15 GMT
Organization: University of the West of England, Bristol

I have not heard of this Modelling Clay tool.
Is that Modelling Clay 3.1? Whay does it run on?

Regards
Frank.
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
From: mattf@cac.washington.edu (Matthew Freedman)
Subject: Re: Click to Raise Windows vs. Point to Raise
Organization: U.W. Information Systems
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:34:34 GMT

In article <fish.722274933@news2.gsfc.nasa.gov>, fish@daacdev1.stx.com writes:
> mattf@cac.washington.edu (Matthew Freedman) writes:
> 
> >Before we change the system to match this defacto standard, the
> >point-to-raiseists would like to see hard evidence that click-to-raise
> >is really better. Does anybody have any? If not, unsubstantiated
> >personal opinion would be welcome too.
> 
> i don't use pcs or macs - but do use X and i prefer point-to-raise
> i feel that being able to specify the RaiseDelay in microseconds
> is very crucial (400-500 seems to be good)

Ah yes, that is another problem with our current system. We are using
the mwm work-alike window manager that is runs locally on the NCD
X-Terminals, but unfortunately, they do not yet support the
autoRaiseDelay resource. This exacerbates the problems with
auto-raise, becuase if you move the mouse from window A to window B in
order to raise it, but happen to cross over window C for even an
instant, window C will raise, possible obscuring windows B and/or A.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
= Matthew M. Freedman                                                 =
= U. of Washington Information Systems       mattf@cac.washington.edu =
= 4545 15th Ave. NE; 4th Floor               (206) 543-5593           =
= Seattle, WA  98105                                                  =
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From: mattf@cac.washington.edu (Matthew Freedman)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: Click to Raise Windows vs. Point to Rais
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:16:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov19.171608.16183
Organization: U.W. Information Systems

mike@CIS.Prime.COM (Mike Causer) writes:
> 
> Why force users one way or the other?  As a long-term SunView user
> (forced to OpenWindows now), I prefer to have point-to-focus, but
> "raising" as an explicit action.  Any "reasonable" window manager would
> allow separate choices for these.  

This is for public, walk-up terminals in our libraries. Users do not
have personal accounts. We want to give them as little opportunity to
mess up the system for next person as possible. We don't even let them
resize windows.

The majority of our users would be totally confused by the choice if
we did give it to them somehow.

       -- Matt

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
= Matthew M. Freedman                                                 =
= U. of Washington Information Systems       mattf@cac.washington.edu =
= 4545 15th Ave. NE; 4th Floor               (206) 543-5593           =
= Seattle, WA  98105                                                  =
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
From: jxm@engin.umich.edu (John Murray)
Subject: Re: Voting Booths
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 15:02:30 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <PSTEVENS.92Nov16124719@cage.gssec.bt.co.uk> pstevens@cage.gssec.bt.co.uk (Perdita Stevens) writes:
>Following on from discussion of various "primitive" voting machines in
>use in the US, I'd like to point out that in the UK we still put a
>pencil cross next to the name of our preferred candidate on a piece of
>paper; the votes are counted (and frequently recounted) by people.

. . . which is why the UK parliament is so unrepresentative of the
people's wishes!  :-) 

In the Republic of Ireland, voters get to number the candidates in
order of preference. A complicated formula and days of manual counting
and re-counting attempts to allocate several constituency seats to 
the various parties in proportion to the votes, rather than using a 
simple majority as in the UK (and the US, of course). It's all 
wonderfully manual and ripe for mechanization, but that would spoil
all the fun! In Ireland, you get good value for your vote! 

>Mechanisation? Work of the devil!
 
Absolutely right!!!
 
John Murray
From: mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: robots in our bodies
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:16:47 GMT
Organization: ISG Technologies Inc., Mississauga Ontario

In article <1992Nov16.223231.11974@bsu-ucs> 00jhritter@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
> I have been hearing a lot lately about the possibly that some day robots will
> become so small that they could be injected into the blood stream to fight  
> diseases or clean out clogged artieries.  Does any think this is possible?
> Does any think this could lead to mind control?  How would this effect our
> future?  Please reply, my grade depends on it!!

I don't know if anyone recorded it or not, but at last May's CHI
conference SF author Bruce Sterling gave a hilarious and biting commentary 
on this and other nanotechnology subjects.  He said things like "so let me
get this straight -- you're going to make tiny machines of roughly the
complexity of a Ford Pinto, and then you're going to inject ten *thousand*
of them into my bloodstream!?  Who's going to make these things, *Chrysler*!?
And how will I know if I have a traffic jam somewhere in my body?" 
 
He said a lot more, and it really served to pop the fantasy bubble of
what nanotechnology might bring.  I don't think I'm exaggerating when I
say that we are like the first human chipping a crude wheel out of 
stone (gears out of silicon?), and who dreams of anti-grav vehicles.
I mean, this might all happen, but I suspect it will occur at roughly
the same time that the first successful avio-porcine hybrid (*) is
patented.

As for mind control, there are _much_ easier ways.  Just take a look
at the new Winston cigarette logo. :-( 

(*) Avio-procine: pigs with wings. :-)  

--
              Mike Sellers      User Interface Team Leader
           mike@isgtec.com      ISG Technologies, Toronto, Canada
              "Actum ne agas" -- Do not do what has been done.
                         Furare tantum ab Optimis
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: The Problem With UNIX
Date: 15 Nov 92 13:08:36 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

qb7g6@fel.tno.nl (Maarten Landzaat) writes:
> "rm * .c" (when you really want "rm *.c")
> 
> I think Unix (well, actually the shell is to blame) should always ask
> for permission when the star is used with rm. 

When I use UNIX I alias rm to mv files to a directory ~/wastebasket, which is
automatically cleaned out using /bin/rm in my logout script.


mathew
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors