HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Jonathan Egre' <jonathan@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: Knobs are better than sliders
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 16:30:39 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:

> This is my first post to human-factors, so please forgive if I'm rehashing
> the already-known.

Welcome!  (Not that I consider myself to be the host in any way.)

> Proposed: Knobs are better than sliders
> 
> Argument: Human beings have much better control of (and proprioceptive memory
> for) wrist rotations than they do for arm movements.  (My girlfriend contribu
> the guess that the evolutionary reason for this is probably specialization
> for precise throwing ability.  When you throw a rock or a spear, you push wit
> the arm and shoulder, but you refine your aim with the wrist),
> 
> Evidence: human being routinely perform and remember rotary motions down to
> a degree or so of precision *without looking at the knob*.  Corresponding
> linear motions (on a scale of a millimeter or less) don't seem to be
> repeatable without visual feedback.

This is an interesting idea.  But I disagree with your suggested reasons.

I suggest that the reason we can adjust rotary controls more accurately
(if we can) is that an angle of 90 degrees is always an angle of 90 degrees,
regardless of the size of the knob and how far away it is.  Our wrists always
go through exactly the same amount of motion when we turn a knob through a 
quarter-turn.  

In contrast, the angles that our wrists and elbows go through when we move
a slider depend on the position of the elbow or shoulder relative to the 
slider; so there is more subconscious "compensation" to be done.  This is
inherent in the rods-and-joints structure of our arms and hands.

I don't know about you, but I can visually judge angles much better than
linear distances anyway.  Again, 90 degrees is always 90 degrees but two
inch-long features can look different depending on the situation.  Although
you were talking about manipulating controls without visual feedback, I 
think that our visual understanding of angles and distances does help our
tactile judgements.

Oh, and I move the mouse on my desk in predominantly linear directions using
my wrist; but I do find the visual feedback indispensible.

Jonathan 

--
Jonathan Egre' = jonathan@mantis.co.uk = jonathan_e@cix.compulink.co.uk
From: konstan@cs.berkeley.edu (Joe Konstan)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Any information on UIST '92
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:53:32 GMT
Organization: Picasso Research Group, UCB Computer Science Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: elmer-fudd.cs.berkeley.edu

Does anyone here have any information (on-line advance program, ...) on 
UIST'92 in Monterey?  Given the latest airfare wars and coupons, it seems
as though I could save well more than the typical conference discount by
planning ahead.

The rest is for conference-bound folks who aren't airfare-aware:

	At the moment (through around Aug 31), almost all of the 
	airlines are offering a combination of the lowest fares
	in a long time and coupons good for another $35-50 off.

	If you can plan ahead and buy a non-refundable ticket, this
	should lower almost any domestic trip to well under $300.

Joe Konstan
konstan@cs.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
From: "John Lacey" <johnl@spinner.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Knobs are better than sliders
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:42:55 -0500

jimc@tau-ceti.isc-br.com (Jim Cathey) writes:

>I disagree!  Rotary controls are easier to do fine tweaking with
>because you have a built-in and somewhat stable frame of reference --
>your wrist rotation or finger twist.  With a linear control, you have
>no reference frame, since arm motions are so coarse.  

In thinking about this, I realized some motor habits I never had
before.  When I adjust a knob or rotating control, I touch just the
control itself.  But with sliders, I grab the control with a couple of
fingers, and use a couple others to measure distance and to nudge for
finer control.

Just musing.  I think, however, that thinking about these things is
useful, as little things like this come up, though we haven't noticed
them despite decades of use.

-- 
John Lacey                   `Everything must end; meanwhile we
                              must amuse ourselves.' --Voltaire
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
From: max@alias.com (Max Stevens-Guille)
Subject: Jef Raskin's Cannon Cat
Keywords: Raskin Cannon
Reply-To: max@alias.com (Max Stevens-Guille)
Organization: Alias Research, Inc. Toronto Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:51:47 GMT

I hope this doesn't get lost in a see of GUIs considered harmful 
messages 8-)

I was thinking this morning about Jef Raskin.  Particularly, what
became of the Cannon Cat, a stand alone word processor that he 
built for Cannon in the mid-eighties.  Purportedly (and I only read a
Byte quick-review at the time) the interface was very transparent to
the user.  I *think* that it was based, to some degree, on the work 
that he did for the ?Swyftcard? application environment for the Apple
IIe.

I've enjoyed Jef's writing very much in the past (for a good chuckle,
read "The Hype in HyperText" a paper that he published in about '87
while the world was worshiping Nelson's footsteps).  My question
thus is: Did Jef ever write up anything on the Cat?  Alternatively/
additionaly, does anyone have one of these little boxes tucked away in a
closet somewhere?

A note to those with the ability to put words together who also
possess time:

It strikes me that we are approaching this whole issue of UI in
a rather curious fashion.  Most books that I read on the subject
concern themselves with theoretical issues.  When they do delve down
to the implementation, they analyze very small components (and 
consequently the context is lost).  While many recent books advocate
Task Analysis and User Centered design, I have yet to see a worked
example put forth in a book.  For that matter, hardly any books on UI,
that I've seen, explore any existing/old products in any depth.

What I'd really like to read is a book in the style of Tracey Kidder's 
"Soul of the New Machine" but for a software product, not a machine.
Obviously, the book should detail how they went in search of potential
users, watched them work, collaborated with the users throughtout the
development cycle, prototyped a bunch, got feedback.  Had political
troubles justifying all the time they were spending away from their
tubes with those "users"... finally came up with a wining product and
lived happily ever after.

And somehow have enough hooks in there for vice presidents to take on
holiday with them (and get sold on the process).

As companies are obviously cagey about talking about products currently
on the shelf, why not talk about a project that isn't.  The
aforementioned Cat seems to me to be a good candidate.

-- 
Max Stevens-Guille      Research & Development      __
Alias Research Inc.     110 Richmond St. East,     /
Toronto, Ontario,       CANADA  M5C 1P1           /         Alias 
max@alias.com                                    /   \      Research
vox: (416) 362-9181     fax: (416) 362-0630     /     \_    Incorporated
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
From: smtuttle@cs.uh.edu ( )
Subject: Re: GUIs Considered Harmful
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:52:38 GMT

I'm firmly of the belief that, when possible, for non-graphical
applications, both command-line (or batchable) and graphical user
interfaces should be supported --- and, I have a "real-world" example
to illustrate why I hold this opinion.

I've been using hyperCmedia, from Paradise Software, to convert a
very large internal company handbook from a "flat" VMS version to
a "hyper" Sun version. I'm not exaggerating when I say that this
handbook is large --- it is over 1000 pages.

One of the options in hyperCmedia is to store a document's pages in an
archive; and, so, hyperCmedia provides a nice GUI tool, a hyperCmedia
archive tool, or hart, to insert, delete, and update pages. It is
easy to use, and almost anyone could figure out how to use it by
just looking at it. However, the thought of adding 1000 pages
interactively was not pleasant. 

Fortunately, Paradise Software was able to provide me with a command-line
version of hart --- chart --- so that I could build shell scripts to
add many pages at a time. I've also used it extensively to perform,
via shell script, modifications to many pages at a time, as well.
It is quite possible that the project would have been abandoned, or
another software package used instead, if we had not been able to
obtain chart.

Now, would I give up hart? No, it is easy to use, and fine when only
making a few changes at a time. Would I give up chart? No, the shell
scripts using it have been too useful. 

Just my two cents worth...

--Sharon M. Tuttle
  Dept. of Computer Science
  University of Houston
  smtuttle@cs.uh.edu
From: brandonl@gold.gvg.tek.com (Brandon Lovested)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: Knobs are better than sliders
Date: 28 Aug 92 00:44:39 GMT
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <1hZ33V#82f0tg2jvsRT1BGbkM9jBSCw=esr@snark.thyrsus.com> esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
>
>I was in the shower with my girlfriend this morning, and happened to be in
>a Zenlike notice-everything mood when she adjusted the water temperature. Split
>seconds later I'd flashed on some experiences of my own with rotary and other
>kinds of controls, and formulated a theory which she and I discussed with some
>enjoyment while towelling each other off.


All this talk of sliders, knobs, girlfriends and showers.
I think all you technical-types have completely missed the point.

"Knobs are great, when you Slid'er in the Shower"




::Brandonius
Author of "Zen and the Art of Not Resisting a Humor Opportunity"
Xref: sparky comp.human-factors:1885 alt.folklore.computers:13132
From: landauer@morocco.Eng.Sun.COM (Doug Landauer)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Graphics (was Re: Indentation)
Date: 26 Aug 1992 18:29:08 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: morocco

> Graphics computers have been shipping since 1976 (Apple II).
> Why are you all still programming completely in text?

Books able to contain pictures have been shipping for a very
long time.  Why do so many of us prefer to read books that contain
no pictures at all?
-- 
Doug Landauer -- landauer@eng.sun.com
SMI[STE]->SunPro::Languages.PE(C++);
From: cs.berkeley.edu (Joe Konstan)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: GUIs Considered Harmful
Date: 28 Aug 1992 23:44:57 GMT
Organization: Picasso Research Group, UCB Computer Science Division
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: elmer-fudd.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <RJC.92Aug28171240@daiches.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) writes:

|> Would anyone buy a tv set where the difference between turning it on
|> and changing channel was how manby times and how fast you pushed a
|> single button?

Well, yes.  My grandmother had a somewhat old TV with remote control (can't
remember whether it was RCA or GE) where the remote had only a single
button.  The button advanced the channel by one position from 1 through 13
and back to 1.  When the channel was on 1, the TV was off.

I recognize that for most of us, today, this would be absurd (no UHF, 
no volume control, no random access), yet she and my grandfather never
saw a need to upgrade to a fancier TV.

The point (I knew there was one somewhere) is that in many cases people will
get used to, and even defend whatever system they are using.  These 
ongoing battles over 3D vs. 2D, black&white vs. color, etc., are mostly
just people (albeit bright and opinionated ones) expressing their opinions 
which are in part based on the systems they've used before.

For a meaningful comparison, I'd like to see real results (as in a 
controlled study) that show:

	*  That a particular design is easier to learn for a broad
	   cross-section of the population

	*  That a particular design makes "power users" more productive
	   than "power users" of other designs--again, starting with
	   a broad cross-section of the population, or

	*  That a particular design is more productive for the 
	   casual user who uses the application only occasionally.

If we can't find or generate experimental results that show any such 
difference, then all we are doing is continuing religious wars of the
Emacs vs. vi nature that really don't belong in comp.human-factors.

Joe Konstan
konstan@cs.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
From: cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson)
Subject: Re: Moderated Human-Factors Newsgroup
Organization: WORLDESIGN, Seattle
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 03:40:12 GMT


Moderation ALWAYS makes for a better newsgroup.  It lends consistency
to the management and is a useful mediator for people looking for 
information from other participants.

Bob Jacobson
Moderator
sci.virtual-worlds
From: bubba@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Gary Beason)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: Knobs are better than sliders
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:50:54 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

In article <1992Aug27.123636.19922@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bq276@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael Seese) writes:
>
>I answered Debbie's original query on this subject via e-mail,
>but I meant to post it, so I'll repeat it in abbreviated form.
>After having read Norman's book ``The Design of Everyday Things,''
>(which I'm so most, if not all of you have read), the logical
>answer seems to be, ``Use a knob, or a slider, or whatever works
>best.''  The best design is one that is inherently obvious, and 
>needs no explanation to use. Back to the shower discussion, a 
>friend of mine, who was reading over my shoulder, said he would
>like to see the water temperature controlled with foot pedals.


Since you mentioned Norman--didn't he talk about faucet knobs as being
logically odd in that they're mirror images of each other?
                         
The point is aculturation, I suppose.  Already, this thread has
brought conflicting arguments as to what is needed for greater, more
precise control--full grasping, use of arm vs. wrist.


Gary Beason
bubba@mace.cc.purdue.edu

P.S.  My previous post was my first to this group although I've been
reading for a while.
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
From: bernard@is.morgan.com (Bernard Horan)
Subject: Re: Knobs are better than sliders
Organization: Morgan Stanley - IS
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:09:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.170222.550@advtech.uswest.com>, glw@io.uswest.com (Glenn Williams) writes:
>It's called a 'pie menu'.  I've seen it demoed on SUN's NeWS system;
>the author won't implement it for X because X sucks.  Calling Don Hopkins!
> 
> Has anyone else implemented this?


I once implemented a Pie menu in Smalltalk for a prototype clinical information system,
and without exception all of the (5) example users hated it. The problem wasn't really
the interaction (though they found it fairly difficult) but the _size_ of the menu. This
resulted from being restricted to horizontal text, so each sector of the pie
had to be wide enough to hold the text. This isn't a problem for 3 or 4 options, 
but as soon as you go over 4 the menu size becomes unmanageable.

I've never seen the NeWS version, but I'd be interested to see how they overcame
the problem.

Bernard 
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors,comp.windows.misc,comp.windows.x
From: qpliu@ernie.princeton.edu (q.p.liu)
Subject: Re: GUIs Considered Harmful
Originator: qpliu@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Keywords: n
Reply-To: qpliu@princeton.edu
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:43:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.194407.15771@nntp.uoregon.edu> johnm@cajal.uoregon.edu (John Martin) writes:
>So I will restate my thesis here: In the majority of cases, when the GUIs
>and CLIs are learned to the point of "mastery", CLIs are more productive.
>You can accomplish tasks more quickly under CLIs in general, but this does
>depend on which tasks we are talking about.

Where do character---or keystroke---based interfaces (such as in rn,
vi, emacs) fit in?  The problem with CLIs is that each task requires
at least two keystrokes.

As for productivity, it seems to me that a screen with a large amount
of information as in a GUI would generally be better.  It's quicker to
shift one's eyes from one part of the screen to another than to type
something to bring up a piece of information.

However, as an input devices go, for precise commands, a mouse lacks the
bandwidth of a keyboard.  The problem with GUIs is that they make the
keyboard harder to use.

On the other hand, there are things better done by a pointer device than
a keyboard.  The problem with the mouse is that it disrupts the use of
the keyboard.
-- 
qpliu@princeton.edu           Standard opinion: Opinions are delta-correlated.
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
From: Peter.Gorny@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de (Peter Gorny)
Subject: Menus in stereo displays ...Was: Knobs are better than sliders
Organization: University of Oldenburg, Germany
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:57:40 GMT

S_TITZ@iravcl.ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz) writes:

> Peter.Gorny@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de writes:
...
>>  (we have even found it difficult to decide how to present a menu in such a
>>  (virtual) viewing cube - as a set of blocks, for instance??)
...
>Sorry, I just see no useful application for that. Maybe you could
>enlighten me about the purpose. 
When working in a steroscopically displayed view volume and you want to
interact with objects you need an input for commands. Staying with the
wellknown popup-menus we experimented how to display them: as hanging
paper sheets, as a pile of building blocks etc.  The 3D blocks were
not convincing. Paper sheets and blocks gave the problem that you had
to catch them with the 3D-mouse by moving that through the viewing volume.
But we found a  solution:  the sheets pop up on that vertical plane 
where the mouse happens to be at that moment. That works fine.

Peter Gorny


.     ________________________________________________________
      Snail-Mail:    P.O.Box 2503 - D-2900 Oldenburg - Germany 
      Voice:            +49-441-798-2901 or -4521 (Fax: -2155)
      E-Mail:     Peter.Gorny@arbi.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE 
                                         040003@DOLUNI1.bitnet 
                                              gorny@uniol.uucp
      ________________________________________________________
From: spitzak@gree.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill Spitzak)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: GUIs Considered Harmful
Date: 27 Aug 1992 06:44:58 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: spitzak@gree.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: gree

>Lots of people point at 3d borders on widgets and try to make fun of them.
>Look at it from the other slant for a moment.. throw away the 3d borders
>and use a Mac (pre System 7) or something written with Athena Widgets.
>How does the user tell the difference between a button and a text entry 
>box?  They both look *the* *same* (a box with text inside).  But on Motif 
>(for instance) the button looks like a button because it's raised, while 
>text entry areas look like text entry because they're sunken.  Yeah it takes
>more code & CPU power to do this.  So what?  It isn't a lot and advantages
>come from it.

I have seen and used what I considered a very good GUI, one that was quite
nonobstrusive and as easy to interact with as any I have ever seen, and it
could be done in 2 colors!  It would never get past marketing however, they
would throw fits about it being difficult for novices.

"Buttons" were simply words (or images) with
*nothing* around them.  If a "button" was "on" it had a box drawn around it.
Clicking an "off" button turned it on.  Clicking an "on" button did nothing
(there were no toggles, see below).

"Text fields" looked exactly like "on" buttons.  Clicking in them placed the
text insertion cursor (which incidentally was a inverse box covering the letter to
the right) at that point.

If you were confused whether something was a button or a text field, clicking
on it would tell you.  If it was a down button nothing happened.  If it was a
text field the cursor appeared.  Both operations were harmless.

There was also the capability for hybrids, like an array of editable text
fields, the user can change them all, and select a subset of them.  Attempting
to change one would select it.  I did not see this used.

The graphics were extremely clean, since in the normal state no borders needed
to be drawn.  A panel looked like a flat box with words formatted inside it.

The system could be done better with one more color (like grey).  Normal stuff
has the gray background, black is used for the text, and instead of the box
"on" buttons and textfields have a white rectangle drawn behind them.  I wrote
some stuff like this on the NeXT.  I demonstrated
this system to many people, most did not even notice that they were not using
the NeXTStep interface, despite the total dissimilarity of the graphics, and
none had any trouble updating the data in a panel.

If the UI thought police would let me, I would love to implement more systems
with this "flat" interface.  I would also use 3D, but would reserve it for
the edges of draggable things (like windows), for buttons that cause an action
like accept or cancel, for toggles (checkboxes), and things you push to
get menus.  The above scheme is not acceptable for toggling items, users could
not figure it out, and all toggles had to be implemented as pairs of buttons.

Bill Spitzak

Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
From: Peter.Gorny@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de (Peter Gorny)
Subject: mouse use in VirtualObjectViewer (Apple)
Organization: University of Oldenburg, Germany
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 11:53:45 GMT

Apple distributed a sample program "Virtual Object Viewer" (VOV) during the
CHI 92 in Monterey, which uses QuickTime and allows to view an object, which 
has been scanned with a videocamera from 180 directions.

VOV is a program in which the user has to use the mouse to shift from one
view of the object to the next. For example: A click on the right side of 
the displayed object picks the next frame viewing the object a little 
further to the right.  So it appears that the object is turned to the left.

IMHO this is a beautiful example of programmer-centered and not user-oriented 
approach: for me it seems to be more natural to click on the right side to 
make the object turn in that direction; in VOV you have to indicate with the 
mouse the direction, in which _you_ want to move around the (fixed) object. 
(Since the user sits fixed in his/her chair in front of the screen, it is 
difficult to see how he/she should (or could) move around the object....)

Since I was surprised over the difficulties I had with handling the program
I have tested it with 11 other persons (no representive sample) and have
observed the same problems.

Peter Gorny



      ________________________________________________________
      Prof. Dr. Peter Gorny
      Informatics Dept. - C. v. Ossietzky University Oldenburg
                 Computer Graphics & Software-Ergonomics Group
.     ________________________________________________________
      Snail-Mail:    P.O.Box 2503 - D-2900 Oldenburg - Germany 
      Voice:            +49-441-798-2901 or -4521 (Fax: -2155)
      E-Mail:     Peter.Gorny@arbi.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE 
                                         040003@DOLUNI1.bitnet 
                                              gorny@uniol.uucp
      ________________________________________________________