From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM Funny
Date: 10 Oct 92 22:54:48 GMT
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany

In <6170.2ad5a35b@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

>In article <strobl.718461278@gmd.de>, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>> In <6145.2ad1dc34@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>> 
>>>Except that they don't work in all cases, so you can't use them.
>> 
>> True. If another window has the keyboard focus, they won't work.

>While it may be obvious to a PROGRAMMER when the keyboard focus changes,
>it certainly isn't ovious to the USER. When I bring up a dialog box within
>the same application, it may TECHNICALLY be a different window, but to me,
>the user, it is the same application.

This depends a lot on the characteristics of the system. If there is
a big, visible difference between the look and feel of an application
window and a dialog box, the user probably won't recognize the 
dialog box as just another window. But if the dialog box looks
and works like a window, it's different. In addition, it is
always visible which window the focus has. 

For me, its much more obvious that my keyboard actions apply
to the active window and it's menu (if it has one) and its
buttons et al, that that some remote menu bar works on one
of many visible windows.

>> This is just what I would expect in a system with more than a 
>> single window. 

>But not what you would expect in a system with a single APPLICATION. That's
>my beef.

Indeed. It's not what I would expect in a system with a SINGLE application.

The Macintoshs user interface design (as far as I know about, which isn't
that much) is better than the Windows one, as long as there is only
one, single application in use. For multiple applications, its worse.

>> But as long as the window which has the menu bar we are talking
>> about *has* the keyboard focus, you can use all available menu navigation
>> methods given by the standard menu keyboard interface. 

>You can. It is quite modal, and requires a bit more cognitive effort than
>using a mouse, but you can.

Of course it's modal. If you just have launched the 'open document' dialog,
you are in the mode of opening a document. It doesn't make much sense to
reenter that dialog a second time, from within the first dialog.

I can imagine a fully recursive user interface, where you could
use a secondary file dialog to paste the content of a file into the name
field of the first dialog, just by using the very same menu bar,
but I can't imagine myself explaining *that* to a user. 

>> That Peter couldn't remember the shortcuts doesn't surprise me -
>> I'm unable to remember them, as well. I use them all the time while 
>> working with Windows applications, but if you would ask me how
>> to open a file in Write, I would have a hard time to come up with
>> the correct answer Alt d f. Fortunately, my hands and fingers
>> know it better.

>Funny. As a long-time Mac user, I can recite all the standard shortcuts 
>from memory. And my fingers know them quite well. 

That's because "standard shortcuts", as implemented by the Mac
and the keyboard interface to menu bars and dialog boxes on
Windows a two different things. Windows has "standard" shortcuts
(called "accelerators"), in addition.   I.e. Alt d f and Ctrl+v
are two different things. I too rememember the standard shortcuts
like Ins, Del, PgUp and so on, mostly because they are separate
keys on the standard PC keyboard (the one just recently adapted
on the Macintosh, if I'm not mistaken). 

>Which is exactly the point. If you have to think about the shortcuts, then
>you might as well use the mouse -- its faster. If you can't remember them
>instantly, game over.

Not so. My fingers reside on the keyboard. Even if I have to do a short
look at the menu bar (I'm looking at window, anyway), it is much simpler to
just type one letter than to remove the right hand from the keyboard, to
locate the mouse, to look back to the screen, to find the cursor, to move
it to the menu entry (which I've lost while looking for the mouse) and to
click at that entry.

>And what's the use of training your fingers to type something, if it can't
>be used in all cases. I started working with Windows, and I got used to
>ALT-EP for paste. I didn't like it, but I got used to it. Then I brought up
>a dialog box. WHAMMO. ALT-EP didn't work. So much for saving time with
>shortcuts.

Why didn't you use the Ins key? I use it all the time, it is easily
reachable, and it works everywhere.

>And if Write has a shortcut of ALT-DF to open a file, then it proves my 
>point completely. There is no consistancy between Windows applications. The
>correct shortcut would be ALT-FO.

;-) :-) Got you. I'm using a German version of Windows. It's 
"Datei oeffnen", here, and the first letter of the first word
and the second letter of the second word are underlined, in the
menu entry. 

>>>> They're learned automatically as you use the system... 
>> 
>>>NOT!
>> 
>> Why not? I've learned them automatically, while I used the system, and
>> I know a lot of people who learned them while they used the system.

>Except they don't work. So you learn them one way, then you have to go
>back and learn the REAL shortcuts.

Hm. To me, the Ctrl+C shortcut is very nonintuitive.

>> Perhaps there *are* people unable to memorize short (i.e. one
>> or two) key sequences they use all the time, but I doubt  
>> very much that they are in a majority.

>There's actually a large difference between a two and three key sequence. 
>That's why I find Windows menu navigation to be cumbersome.

Where did you find three key sequences? 

>On the Mac, I don't care where the Open menu is. I just hit Command-O and
>I've got it. Under Windows, I can't be sure exactly where this menu is.
>Is it under the File menu, where it should be? Or perhaps I'm using 
>Write, where it falls under a different menu.

Write has it under the File menu. But you're right, shortcuts
(those equivalent to Command-O, not the keyboard/menu interface)
could be more standard between Windows applications. Many don't
have any shortcuts, and if they have, they aren't always identical.
Microsoft seems to have standardized on Ctrl+F12 for File Open
(the use it in Word and Excel), but it isn't standardized enough
to be usefull. I don't use them often. On the other hand, people
are different - I know others who like them: Ctrl+F12, Ins,
Shift+F3, Enter ..., so I'm not so fast to condem that feature.

>>>And as soon as you try to use one of those ALT- shortcuts in a dialog,
>>>WHAMMO -- all that learning goes out the window.
>> 
>> Wrong, plain and simply. Dialog boxes have a very nice and standard
>> keyboard interface, which includes the Alt+ letter shortcuts, of
>> course.

>Nope. You can't do a Paste using the ALT+ shortcuts. You have to do 
><taking deep breath> Ctrl-Ins. 

If the window you are typing to has an Edit menu which has a Paste
entry, you can do a Paste using the Alt+letter shortcuts. If it
hasn't, you can't. It is true that you can't access the menu
of another windows through the keybord, without activating it
before. But you can do a Paste using the Shift+Ins shortcut,
and you can use the Alt+ combination and the cursor keys to
navigate through and operate the dialog box.

>Or if the application is more progressive, Ctrl-V.

Why is this more progressive? Just because MS decided to
support a handfull of Macintosh shortcuts in their applications,
in addition?

Using the clearly labeled "insert" key for an insert operation
is more progressive, IMHO.

>> Where do you get your information about Windows?

>From using it. ARGH!

It is my impression that you use Windows just enough to be able
to complain about its shortcomings, and the Macintosh so much
that you can't see its shortcomings, anymore.

(Well, I take that back. But I have a hard time not to fall
into that trap and to run down the Mac from my limited experience,
and wonder how (or whether at all) you try to avoid it).

>>>Using the computer without a pointing device is a benefit? Oog. I disagree.
>> 
>> Please read what he writes. To be able to operate a computer without
>> a pointing device is a benefit. To be forced to use a pointing device
>> in order to use the computer isn't. 

>I disagree. The pointing device is a natural extension of real-world learning.

Sorry, I'm lost here. Care to explain 
 - what that means, and
 - how it applies to my above statement?

Pointing at things is used in real-world learning. Mostly it's the
teacher, who does the pointing ("look, boy, that is a horse"). Most
of the time, there is no device necessary to do the pointing, because
it's either implicit, or unnecessary, because a finger or an arm
is sufficient. 

In addition, many people have bad memories about pointing
devices in real-world learning context (cane), so it isn't that
good an idea to force that upon them. 1/2 ;-)

>Keyboarding is not. I do not agree that being able to use a visual interface
>from the keyboard is a benefit when the mechanisms to do this get in the way 
>of other interface elements through inconsistant usage.

For computers which don't have a keyboard at all, I aggree.

>If ALT-EP worked even from a dialog box, I'd feel better. I'd still think of
>the three key shortcuts as cumbersome, but they wouldn't be so awful. They 
>don't.

You're barking before the wrong tree (I hope I got that picture right :-).

Menus are attached to windows on Windows, so you can't expect the 
keyboard navigation to work on some global menu. This concept doesn't
exist there. Alt e p is local to a windows. Many shortcuts, including
the insert key interpretation, are - more or less - global, because
they are a feature of certain standard child windows, which are
used almost everywhere.

>> 
>>>No, if you don't know what they are, then you can't recall them. You are
>>>back to the old remember/recall cycle that we've shown is faster with the
>>>mouse.
>> 
>>>Second, it proves you never learned them at all, since you couldn't remember
>>>them. If you can remember them in a discussion, you can't remember them
>>>on the keyboard.
>> 
>> Do you really think that it is as simple as that? There is no reason
>> to remember two letter shortcuts much longer than you actually use
>> them. 

>This assertion is exactly contrary to my experience as a Macintosh user.

YOu can't have experience in that area as a Macintosh user, because
that feature doesn't exist on a Macintosh.

>I remember all the standard shortcuts BECAUSE I use them. Either the
>longer Windows shortcuts aren't used (and hence aren't learned), or the
>complexity of the cumbersome nature of the interfaces bars learning.

No. As a experienced Macintosh user, you have a blind spot, here.
If I where a experienced Macintosh user, I would have that blind spot,
too, probably.

>> Do you actually *read* the menu bars of your applications, each
>> time you select a menu entry? Probably not. 

>The beauty of a visual user interface is that YOU DON'T HAVE TO. You
>don't have to READ just RECOGNIZE.

>In a CONSISTANT visual user interface, it is even better, because recognition
>is faster since you already know what to expect!

Indeed. But all this is a feature of the visual interface, not of
the pointing device. The pointing device isn't necessary.

(You may of course call the keyboard navigation a pointing device).

>> You read it once, or twice and remember it by its various attributes 
>> (mostly: position) and use it blindly, later.

>Yup. And this is exactly why mousing is faster than keyboard shortcuts.

Exactly why?

>If you and Peter are actually trying to tell me that you use Windows by
>pressing Alt, then thumbing through the menus by pressing the arrow keys,
>or by looking at the menu items and typing the appropriate shortcut, then you
>are TONS slower than users using the mouse. The comparative cognitive load
>is immense.

I can't speak for Peter. 

A few comments. Windows has - and this is indeed different from the Mac -
more than one method to interact with menus and dialog boxes. There
are 
 - the mouse interface,
 - cursor navigation,
 - the Alt+character navigation and
 - the shortcuts (called accelerators).

The fact that there are four instead of two methods may increase
the cognitive load. On the other hand, one could argue that
the confusion is already there, even on the Macintosh, because
there are *two* different ways to do the same thing. If you 
can ignore one way, why shouldn't you be able to ignore the others?

Personally, I use all four methods, often interleaved, i.e.
I click at some menue entry, read the pop-up menu, and continue
with the cursor keys or a letter. Or I start with the Alt+letter
and continue with the mouse. It depends on how crowded the
menus are, whether I've already memorized them, where my
fingers are and what I try to do. I seems to be quite fast
to me, but this is purely subjective. It seems to be fast
- for me - because it doesn't get in the way, I don't have
to think about it, just like I'm not thinking about whether
to use my left or my right hand. Sometimes the left hand
seems right, sometimes the right hand. Often I use both.

>> If you are unsure, you start to read them, again. But are you able
>> to remember the position of a submenu entry (i.e. third entry, fourth
>> choice) in a discussion? 

>Actually, I usually can. But that's just me. 

Then you must have a very good visual memory. Not all people
have, and it is probably not necessary for menu handling with
the mouse. It is only neccessary here that you recognize
a pattern (for example: a long word just below that separator
line) to hit the correct entry.

Anyway. My point was that the ability to verbally reproduce a 
menu handling action in a discussion isn't a good indication
of whether the method in question is a good one or not.

>> Of course not, and, more important, it doesn't
>> prove anything whether you do it or not. 

>It is important. The issue at hand was the CONSISTANCY of the user 
>interface. I put for the example of Windows shortcuts as an INCONSISTANCY.
>If you can't remember the shortcuts, it proves the inconsistancy.

Just like if you can't rememember the positions (down to the pixel,
of course), it proves the inconsistancy?

[...]

>> You recognize the menu or the dialog box as a whole, and react with the 
>> one or two letter sequence you have assoziated with the one or two
>> word (i.e. command) sequence which describes what you intend to do.

>It is faster to do this with the mouse. With the mouse, you just reach out
>and grab the item you see. With the keyboard, you have to recall, then
>synthesize the appropriate key, then you have to type it. By the time you've
>done all this, the mouse user has already grabbed his mouse, grabbed the
>item on the screen and returned to the keyboard for the next thing. Faster.

Yes, faster, if the conditions are right. If you already look at the
item. If you have your hand on the mouse. If you know where your pointer
is. If you look at the item, but have you hand on the keyboard and 
you don't know where the pointer is, it is much faster - and 
simpler (less cognitive load) - if you just press the letter which you
see underlined in the word you are looking at.

And if you don't look at the item (i.e. menue entry, command, action
to trigger) in question, its even faster, you just repeat the
memorized keystroke sequence (i.e. O(pen) F(ile)), instead of 
trying to synchronize and match four different things: the
picture representing the action in question (a menu entry, for
example), the pointer on the screen, your hand, and of course,
the mouse. And don't forget to hold down the Shift key
(or was it Comamnd?), while you try to double-click. :-)

>>>Except the Mac doesn't have an ALT key. It appears your learning is
>>>defective.
>> 
>> You mean, his whole argument breaks because the Alt key is called
>> Command key (or apple key? I, too, don't recall the name), on
>> the Macintosh? 

>It goes by various names: Command, Clover, Pretzel.

>Alt is not one of the names.

>The argument breaks down because your learning is defective.

No, because the key isn't used by its name, but by its position
on the keyboard, and by its function in the OS.

>>>This is also the problem with OS/2 PM and Windows. There's no consistancy
>>>in the UI design. (Gee, we've come full circle)
>> 
>> Well, indeed. The Macintosh UI is different from PM and Windows, and
>> more consistent, often by omission. This doesn't always make it 
>> better, imho.

>IMHO, Consistancy is lots more important than feature count.

I don't know how to compare these.

Anyway. I say that I prefer my house to have more than one
way out, and you answer that one shouldn't rate a house by
its number of doors.

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy