From: kanefsky@halcyon.com (Steve Kanefsky)
Subject: Re: More Defense of CLI (there, I changed the subject ... )
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:11:46 GMT

In article <6212.2adc3730@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.224704.1325@nwnexus.WA.COM>, kanefsky@halcyon.com (Steve Kanefsky) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct13.202113.23250@gvl.unisys.com> dave@prc.unisys.com (David Lee Matuszek) writes:
>>>In article <6203.2adadad3@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>>>
>>>The point isn't that a two-year old can use a mouse.  The point is
>>>that things people learn early in life are more deep-seated and
>>>fundamental, and require less higher-level intellectual activity.
>> 
>> That doesn't necessarily matter.  Just because a two-year old can do
>> task A but not task B doesn't mean that an adult can't do task B more
>> efficiently than task A.  Otherwise we'd all be crawling everywhere we
>> go instead of walking, running, driving, flying airplanes, etc.
>
>(Sigh)
>
>You carefully avoided David's point, didn't you? While you are not
>two years old anymore, and you've certainly added skills since you were
>two, the things that are easy for you at two are certainly still easy
>for you as an adult.

No, I didn't avoid the point at all -- I disputed it.  Sure, it's still
easy for me to walk or crawl.  But now that I'm grown up I'm capable of
travelling much more efficiently using a bicycle.  As our mental
capacities increase, why not take advantage of them by using more
sophisticated tools?


>And we're not talking about some ad hominem task A and task B, we're talking
>about the specific case of using a Mouse (or other pointing device) versus
>using a keyboard. 

Right.  In most cases, I can communicate more information in less time
using a keyboard.  I wouldn't want to use a keyboard for freehand
drawing, but for entering commands it's often more efficient.  How can
you possibly fail to see that some commands are better described with
words than with pictures, and that it's usually easier to specify words
with a keyboard (when the set of possible words is more than a couple
dozen).  If I asked for a description of how to get to your home from my
home (which I'll assume is thousands of miles away), would you spend
hours drawing me pictures, or a couple minutes typing up directions?
Even the pictures would be useless without words to label things.


>>>You can use a mouse literally without thinking about it.  On occasion,
>>>working with someone else at their terminal, I have been momentarily
>>>frustrated because I couldn't get to the mouse to point at something
>>>on the screen, only to realize I could use a finger for this purpose.
>>>(Admittedly, I'm highly practiced with the mouse.)
>> 
>> I still claim that using the mouse needs to be taught.  
>
>And the keyboard requires no training at all?

Sure it does.  It requres more training than the mouse.  I've certainly
gained back the time I've invested in learning to use a keyboard.


>> Having to pick up the mouse and move it back onto the pad is decidedly 
>> *non* intuitive to many people.  
>
>While it may be non intuitive, do you have to show people over and over?

Sometimes.

>I submit that you probably only have to show somebody this ONCE, and they
>will know they can do it. Proficiency at any skill comes with practice.

But there's only so far you can go.  The more expresssive a language is,
the longer it takes to learn.


>> On the other hand, even rats can be taught to press a particular key.  
>
>The issue isn't pressing a key. The issue is using a keyboard. Surely you're
>not suggesting that rats have been taught to use a keyboard?

If we're talking about simple keyboard shortcuts for copy, paste, etc.
then pressing a key *is* using the keyboard.  Rats have been taught to
press a poarticular key to get a particular response (food vs. electric
shock for example).  I'm sure that a child who's too young to use a
mouse could be taught to press one of several different keys to execute
one of several operations.


>> I also sincerely doubt that a two-year old could be taught to understand 
>> a standard file dialog box.  
>
>There's a video tape of an Apple engineer's 1 1/2 year old daughter using
>a Mac. I knew a consultant whose 4 and 6 year old children could use his
>Mac. Note that these children haven't even gotten to the age where they
>could nominally read, much less spell out commands on a keyboard interface.

So were these children doing desktop publishing or what?  How can you
lump everything into "could use his mac"?  Sure, a few simple mouse
movements is enough to browse around in the finder, but it requires
language and keyboard skills to do most things on the Mac.  Just as
pressing a few keys doesn't make you a touch-typist, being able to move
the mouse around doesn't make you able to use the full Mac GUI.


>> Many of the things a two-year old can be taught to use the mouse for 
>> could also be done with just a single keypress. The more complex things 
>> you can do in a GUI still require language and higher cognitive processes.  
>
>A two-year old can be taught to use KIDPIX for drawing pictures. With
>the mouse.
>
>Are you suggesting that this can be done with a single keypress? If so,
>you are grossly mistaken.

I already mentioned drawing as one of the few areas where the mouse is
such a natural interface that the keyboard couldn't replace it.  A
comparable example would be teaching a kid to play musical notes by
pressing keys on the keyboard.  The same kid probably couldn't use a
mouse interface to a piano keyboard as effectively.

This argument about what two-year olds can do is becoming very tiresome.
How does this apply to what you or I can do?  I've already shown that
the relative ease of skills changes with age, and completely new skills
are learned which become as easy as skills which were learned early in
life.
 

>Using a visual interface requires no language or higher cognitive processes.
>Children who can't read, spell and barely speak can use a visual interface
>quite easily.

This is still boring me.  Just because a 2-year old can't do something
doesn't mean I can't do it in my sleep.


>> Actually it's very hard to grab a physical object.  Ask a robot.  
>
>Humans aren't robots. Or have you been using command line interfaces so
>long you have forgotten this.

The problems involved with grabbing a physical object are the same
regardless of who's doing it.  Take computer vision and AI techniques in 
robotics courses (as I have) and you'll understand.


>> Your own argument applies here.  You learn it so early you don't realize it's
>> hard.  
>
>Good point. Perhaps its easier because we've had more time to build proficiency.
>That still means it is easier, regardless of the reason.

Is it easier for you to add 15235 and 32124 or to solve the equation 
2x = 4?  Which one did you learn how to do first?  Which one have you
had more time to build proficiency in?


>> Well, I'm sure you're aware how oversimplified this is.  The mind has
>> the ability to process lots of things in parallel.  There are some areas
>> that can get overloaded, but you can do two or more non-conflicting
>> tasks at the same time.  
>
>Exactly. I can mouse around on the screen while thinking about what I'm going
>to write next. I can even do it while I'm talking on the telephone.
>
>> I can type or talk at the same time I'm thinking up what to type or say 
>> next.  
>
>Don't call me when I'm typing in news replies. I can't type and talk at the
>same time. Doing so overloads my semantic capabilities.

It's not the typing.  I can play games with fairly compllex keyboard
interfaces while I'm talking to someone.  It's the *language* use that
conflicts.  Using the mouse interface still requires language, and tends
to conflict with talking as well.



>I've known people who appear to be able to read, talk on the phone and
>watch TV at the same time. They don't appear to do any of these things
>very well. I can't. Perhaps if I practiced more, I could....

Sometimes people think they can do these things, but they actually
can't.  Studies have shown that people who listen to two conversations
at once (one in each ear) sometimes think they are understanding both,
but are actually switching back and forth and missing big chunks of one
or the other or both.


>> What that says to me is that humans have a substantial
>> capacity for processing verbal and even written language.  
>
>True. But we have an easier time just interacting with the real world. It
>takes substantially less brainpower to reach out and pick up your coffee
>cup than it does to describe the action to someone else.

I think it takes very little brainpower to say "pass the coffee."  There
are lots of things that can interfere with the physical action too.  The
cup of coffee might be buried in a clutter of other objects.


>> Otherwise we'd all be using sign language.  
>
>On anthropological (I hope I spelled that correctly) theory is that sign
>language was one of the first forms of communication in human culture. 
>Even today, we use sign language extensively, even if we aren't aware of
>it. (ref. any of one of the recent books on body language.

Body language really isn't an alternative for spoken/written language.
You can't combine components of body language to say something that no
one has ever said before, and have someone understand it.  Look how far
we've advanced and how rapidly, largely due to the power of
spoken/written communication.  There's not a whole lot of difference
between humans and apes, other than language.


>> We have CLI's because there's just some things that are easier to say 
>> with words than with gestures.
>
>Words work better for expressing ideas. Unfortunately, computers have no
>capacity to understand ideas. So using words to communicate with computers
>conveys no advantage.

Well, *my* computers understand my ideas, in the form of programs and
commands, very well.  We could argue what it means to understand
something, but the fact that my computer does exactly what I tell it to
do is proof to me that it understands.  I'd like the ability to express
my ideas in words as well as gestures if you don't mind.


>Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO

BTW I'm a fellow Extra:  AA7QL :-)

--
Steve Kanefsky