From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multiple button mice vs keys(was: Macintosh advocacy (really!))
Date: 11 Dec 92 13:49:21 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Dec6.074033.3880@cubetech.com>, andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern) writes:
> In article <6490.2b1fa35e@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>>
>>Partly because of the design of the NeXT menu system. NeXT menus are very
>>tiny targets, so it is hard to position the mouse to the right spot, 
>>especially if it is far away in some corner of the screen. (See Fitt's Law)
>>
>>The Mac, on the other hand, has menus of finite width, but infinite height.
>>They are extremely easy to hit. You just run the mouse upward until you
>>contact the top of the screen. There's no way to overshoot.
>>
>>So, in this case, the NeXT uses the two-button mouse to overcome a
>>deficiency in the menu system. 
> 
> 	1)  NeXT menu-tiles are *larger* than Macintosh (the are about
> 	the same height and are wider) in the *default* configuration,
> 	and the user can easily make them much, much larger by
> 	changing the font to whatever you want (via Preferences.app
> 	which is our equivelent of the Control Panel...).

How? The Macintosh ones are infinitely tall, since the top edge stops the
mouse motion. 

The NeXT, however, allows you to move the menus anywhere you want, so there
is no edge to confer that infinite dimension.

So, on the one hand, the NeXT has the opportunity to gain a targeting 
advantage over Fitt's law (by having the menu move where you want it),
but the Mac retains menu targets of infinite height.

> 	2)  If someone requires the use of top of the screen as a
> 	"backstop" to hit the menu, then there is no way this person
> 	is going to be able to deal with the close-window,
> 	zoom-window, grow-window, scroll, and scroll knob controls,
> 	which are all quite a bit smaller than a Macintosh menu.

EVERYONE who uses a Macintosh requires the top of the screen as a "backstop".

Don't believe me? Try this experiment. Get a Mac with two monitors. Position
the monitors control panel so the monitor without the menu bar is on top of
the monitor with the menu bar (the physical position is irrelevant). Now,
try to use this setup. You are 100% guaranteed to overshoot the menu bar 
repeatedly.

You may have a point about the window controls. However, these controls are
much closer to the source of work. In the case of the close box, there's
menu commands and keyboard eqivalents for it.

> 	Additionally, a person lacking the gross and fine motor
> 	control skills to hit any one of the window-controls, muchless
> 	a menu (which is smaller than a NeXTSTEP menu by default) just
> 	isn't going to get much work done on Macintosh.

If you are implying that people who rely on the top of the screen as a backstop
suffer from "poor motor skills" -- you are wrong.

I agree that people with motor skill difficulties will have trouble using
a mouse, regardless of the machine.

>>[ discussion of the pop-up menu button ]
>>I think this is the most sensible use of the two-button configuration.
>>
>>I also think that having a menu bar at the top, bottom or sides of the screen
>>where it presents a large target is a better design. And it eliminates
>>the need for a multi-button mouse.
> 
> By default the menu is at the top left side of the screen.  If you
> want to get into menu design, we could talk about how you can move and
> tear off NeXTSTEP menus.

Once you MOVE a NeXTstep menu, it becomes a tiny target again. Get away from
that edge, and you have problems.

-- 
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.