From: portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: Scientific support for GUIs?
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:30:18 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <1992Nov17.102543.1@cc.helsinki.fi>, mlindholm@cc.helsinki.fi writes:
> Why haven't I ever seen an article, where the graphical (destop
> metaphor) and command-line user interfaces had been compared?  
> In other words, is there any objective support to Apple's claims, 
> that the Macintosh interface is easier to learn and that people 
> are more productive when using Macintoshes?
> 
> No personal opinions, please.  I want references.

This is one reference, from the latest issue of SIGCHI
Bulletin (In the "Abstracts Of Interest" section).  It
investigates a few more things than just "GUI vs. command
line", but nevertheless the abstract contains some
interesting items:


AN	UMI Order No. ADGD--90743
AU	MORGAN, KONRAD.
TI	INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN USER PERFORMANCE ON COMMAND
	LINE AND DIRECT MANIPULATION COMPUTER INTERFACES.
IN	University of Edinburgh (United Kingdom) Ph.D.
	1989, 527 pages.
SO	DAI V51(07), SecB, pp3457.
DE	Computer Science.
AB	Available from UMI in association with The British
	Library.  Requires signed TDF.

This dissertation describes 4 experiements which formed
part of an investigation into human-machine anomalies,
attitudes towards technology, and a comparison of two
computer interfaces (direct manipulation, and command
line).  A computer database system with these two different
interfaces was developed, along with a series of
questionnaires.  There parapsychological investigation used
random number generators of various types and complexities,
the behaviour of which determined the performance of the
computer system.  This methodology was adopted to
investigate a series of empirical and philosophical
hypotheses.

The HCI interface data showed that over 3 different subject
populations (computer naive & keyboard literate, computer
naive & keyboard illiterate, and finally experienced
computer users) the direct manipulation interface was
superior with regard to several measures.  It was faster (p
<0.05), had fewer errors (p < 0.01), and was rated on
post-session questionnaires as being better (p < 0.01) than
the comparable command line system.  However users did not
rate the direct manipulation interface as being more
powerful than the command line system.  The technology
attitudes questionnaire showed significant correlations
between early parental encouragement of machine
exploration, and later technological competence.

The parapsychological aspects attempted to develop a secure
computerised methodology for investigating the possibility
that humans interact with computer systems using as yet
unknown methods.  These experiments found little evidence
of any parapsychological effects, but concluded that the
area need more empirical investigation.

----------

I'm sure there are plenty more references in the literature
about the topic of GUIs vs. command-line interfaces -- this
is just the one that happened across my eyes most recently.

In addition, I believe that Microsoft commissioned their
own "study" which summarized the "advantages" of GUIs,
about the same time they introduced Windows 3.0.  I would
question the academic integrity of the research Microsoft
commissioned, but it would be interesting to see their
report nevertheless.  Perhaps Microsoft might still be
offering copies of it.


--
Michael Portuesi   Silicon Graphics, Inc.   portuesi@sgi.com